Joker (This Thread Made by Gang Weed)

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Joker (This Thread Made by Gang Weed)

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Chuka Umana posted:

Also Joker in this movie is dumb as gently caress. I could only see him succeeding out of sheer luck

The trailers made it look like he was starting some kind of movement, but I actually liked that he was basically a meme who was in the right place at the right time.

He's like if Overly Attached Girlfriend was actually crazy and was adopted as a mascot for a class war

Roman fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 5, 2019

# ¿ Oct 5, 2019 01:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 16:30

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

lol that woke types were complaining that it was an incel movie when it was actually a gently caress the rich movie

like, EVERYTHING is Thomas Wayne's fault

# ¿ Oct 5, 2019 04:22

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Monglo posted:

Movie is good. I'm honestly confused by the criticism it's getting.
Wanted to point out a thing, that I haven't seen noted:
What do you think is the significance of the photo with "I love your smile - T.W" written on it?
Was she actually not crazy all along?

Maybe I got this all wrong but I thought that Wayne stuck his dick in crazy and knocked her up, so he covered it up and set Arthur up as adopted to cover the tracks even more

# ¿ Oct 5, 2019 04:40

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

unless I missed something, yes. the photo with TW on it kinda makes me think that. she was crazy AND she got screwed over

# ¿ Oct 5, 2019 04:46

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

I do think it's interesting that this was set in the 80s, next Batman is supposed to be in the 90s, next Wonder Woman is also in the 80s. The DC movies aren't supposed to be a cinematic universe like Marvel but I wonder if there is something going on.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2019 13:45

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Grizzled Patriarch posted:

The timeline with the Bruce Wayne stuff is pretty funny. Batman is gonna be out there beating the poo poo out a like 60-year old Joker I guess?

if they were going to tie this to the next Batman that's set in the 90s, they could set it up as the "Clown Riots" being a thing that happened in the past. So they could have some else other than Fleck be the Joker even though Fleck exists, so they wouldn't technically be lying when they said Phoenix wouldn't play the Joker again.

I mean, probably not, but it's fun to speculate. Just think it's odd that they're doing a bunch of DC comic movies in a row all set in the 80s and 90s, but they're not tied together?

EDIT: Even Phillips is hinting that maybe Fleck maybe inspired the "real Joker"
https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/joker-director-addresses-fan-theory-about-arthur-flecks-ties-to-batman?sf110261030=1

# ¿ Oct 7, 2019 20:51

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

the problem with portraying the mentally ill is that IRL the extremely mentally ill often look like bad actors. just look at eliot roger or anyone else making video manifestos

# ¿ Oct 18, 2019 04:28

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

The existence of Cinemasins shows you pretty much have to spell poo poo out to a general audience.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2019 22:20

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Philips confirmed that Arthur didn't kill Sophie. It wasn't really supposed to be ambiguous like the other stuff in the movie.

Also if it hasn't been linked, the Peter Coffin take on the film is pretty good and did a good job at expressing some stuff I had struggled to find words for (the individual catharsis vs. allyship stuff)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIjNdZ1lAc4

# ¿ Nov 8, 2019 03:17

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

ruddiger posted:

This feels like Stephen King not realizing Jack Torrance was always an abusive alcoholic.

What you're talking about isn't necessary to the themes of the movie.

The social worker tells it like it is and offers sympathy, but Arthur rejects her, because he doesn't think she's listening to him and telling him what he wants to hear.

The medical records guy knows the files will upset Arthur, but Arthur doesn't care and takes it anyway.

The only black person who is giving Arthur what HE wants is the imaginary version of Sophie who comforts him and boosts his ego. But when that bubble pops, she's just a stranger with her own problems who's scared for her child. Arthur doesn't care about that poo poo because it doesn't help HIM, so he just walks away.

The last significant black person in the movie is the asylum interviewer in the last scene. Killing her represents the complete refusal of any "allyship" because they don't "get it." This is why he's not actually a "working class hero." It's all about his selfishness, his own catharsis.

Roman fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 11, 2019

# ¿ Nov 11, 2019 18:46

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

A Joker who's successful because he's wildly unpredictable and extremely lucky could be potentially more interesting than the 12 dimensional chess playing super genius we've come to know him as

# ¿ Nov 11, 2019 23:15

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Everyone posted:

Batman v Superman? I think there's a point where Affleck recalls the murder but I don't really remember.

it's right at the beginning and pearls are included

# ¿ Nov 13, 2019 00:04

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Arthur wanted Sophie to comfort and support him and boost his ego

Mentioning her kid was a reminder that Sophie's affection/loyalty was towards someone other than Arthur, and also he was actually seen as a threat to what she really cared about, which was not Arthur. Therefore Sophie ceased to be useful for his fantasies

# ¿ Nov 14, 2019 20:42

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

I only use spoiler tags because people can and will complain about the dumbest poo poo as "spoilers" on the internet

# ¿ Nov 15, 2019 21:10

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Everyone posted:

But that's an excellent way to weed out the fuckwits.
If a person complains about someone else's disproven speculation, that person is a fuckwit and can be safely ignored.

I got bitched out back in the day for saying Clive Barker's Undying ended with running in circles around a big boss. For an FPS in 2001 that's like saying "Hit Esc to bring up the menu" spoiled the game. Ever since then I use spoiler tags for the dumbest poo poo

# ¿ Nov 15, 2019 23:22

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Brother Entropy posted:

unfortunately wb is not smart so yeah, bad sequel is far more likely. robert pattinson's the batman will have a post-credits scene of old man arthur breaking out of arkham, potentially recast if joaquin is not on-board

reminder that pattison batman will be set in the 90s. so if they do that it depends on how they set it in a timeline, when the ending of Joker in Arkham actually takes place etc.

they also keep stressing the new batman will be a detective story. True Detective But With Batman could be interesting and still fit with the tone of Joker. just saying it doesn't have to be a disaster if they do tie the movies together.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2019 02:01

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

I said come in! posted:

Am I misunderstanding something? Cause Avengers Endgame is sitting at $2,797,800,564.

it's referring to how much it cost to make compared to its profits. Joker had way less of a budget than movies like Endgame

# ¿ Nov 19, 2019 01:20

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

The MSJ posted:

I can't confirm this but someone told me WB has followed Snyder on Twitter.

think you meant this for the snyder thread? but i checked @wbpictures and nope

# ¿ Nov 22, 2019 01:48

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Finally re-watched it today. Still so good. Noticed a couple things:

- In the Wayne murder scene, an Excalibur poster with "RESIST" spray painted on it (BvS had an Excalibur poster in its scene)
- In the scene with Bruce standing over his dead parents, a Wolfen poster on the wall. Maybe a reference to when Arthur says "They just think we'll just sit there and take it like good little boys, and we won't werewolf and go wild."

Roman fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jan 14, 2020

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 02:43

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Also it seems like Phoenix is right handed (he uses it to open doors, etc.) but writes with his left hand, which is why his journal writing looks so goofy.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 07:28

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Tulip posted:

The Batman stuff felt pretty tacked on and non-essential. Thomas Wayne felt like this unholy Ed Koch-Michael Bloomberg-Jeff Bezos character, and he's very comprehensible as a representation of "financiers who got into politics as a means of hurting poor people," but the superhero elements didn't add a lot.

I disagree because

Roman posted:

- In the scene with Bruce standing over his dead parents, a Wolfen poster on the wall. Maybe a reference to when Arthur says "They just think we'll just sit there and take it like good little boys, and we won't werewolf and go wild."

it shows that Arthur's actions kept the cycle of abuse going

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 07:36

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Another thing to get off my chest: One critique I keep seeing over and over is that Arthur, a mentally ill uneducated uncultured loner, was incoherent and had nothing profound to say on Murray's show. I would argue that him not delivering some eloquent "clever" Aaron Sorkin speech was a sign of good writing, as opposed to bad.

I also liked that his attempt to look cool and clever by stealing Murray's "That's life" catchphrase was cut off by the Please Stand By screen.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 07:54

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Pirate Jet posted:

The best bit is right after that when it implies that news stations are just straight up airing the footage of Murray getting shot.

But bleeping out the naughty word

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 12:17

Roman: Aug 8, 2002

Yeah but Arthur's kind of a hack so it works.

I'm still impressed that someone made a movie about one of the most popular comic supervillains ever, and didn't portray them as some super cool antihero but as a dangerous dork. And it not only worked but resonated with lots of people and made a billion dollars.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2020 23:39