|
Post by scabab on Oct 3, 2019 5:24:28 GMT
Movie comes out tomorrow so please be respectful and use this thread to discuss the movie without spoiling it for anyone.
You can still make your own threads if you wish, perhaps to give a review but again make sure to either label the thread as having spoilers in the thread title or use the spoiler tags or both.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Oct 3, 2019 5:30:20 GMT
cool
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Oct 3, 2019 22:41:54 GMT
BATMAN DIES!
Spoilers
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Oct 3, 2019 23:51:28 GMT
Did he kill the lady at the end in the crazy hospital?
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Oct 4, 2019 0:06:49 GMT
Do you think he was really Thomas Wayne's son or not?
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 4, 2019 7:39:18 GMT
Do you think he was really Thomas Wayne's son or not? I want to say he was, but at the same time no.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 4, 2019 13:13:46 GMT
The ambiguity of the ending is PERFECT because it leaves enough room to having an adequately-aged Joker against an adequately-aged Batman. If the movie is REALLY set in 1981, then you get a vast mismatch between Joker and Batman in terms of age.
Yeah, genius work. Wise move.
Well, if it's 1981, and Arthur is already 40-45 years old, while Bruce Wayne is only 7-10 years old... IMHO it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a 30 years old Batman pitted against an adequately-aged Joker/Fleck in the future to come.
Considering the film as a part-reality, part-hallucination affair leaves VAST room to a probable future where you're getting THIS Joker against one mature/adult Batman.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 4, 2019 17:37:26 GMT
The ambiguity of the ending is PERFECT because it leaves enough room to having an adequately-aged Joker against an adequately-aged Batman. If the movie is REALLY set in 1981, then you get a vast mismatch between Joker and Batman in terms of age. Yeah, genius work. Wise move. Well, if it's 1981, and Arthur is already 40-45 years old, while Bruce Wayne is only 7-10 years old... IMHO it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a 30 years old Batman pitted against an adequately-aged Joker/Fleck in the future to come. Considering the film as a part-reality, part-hallucination affair leaves VAST room to a probable future where you're getting THIS Joker against one mature/adult Batman. I think Batman would be 25-27 when he becomes Batman and arthur would be in his late 50s, when they do eventually battle. I dont think it is that big a deal as long as they fight, The Joker will always fight Batman.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 5, 2019 5:50:16 GMT
They changed the entire thing with Zazie Beetz’ character from the script.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 5:50:33 GMT
Phoenix fucking crushed it. And I'm so happy this film is gonna make serious bank at the box office. Phoenix deserves all the accolades coming his way because he is one of the most dedicated actors on the planet. Also a lot of his great films flop at the box office so I'm happy that a lot of people are buying tickets to see this in theaters.
8.5/10
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 5, 2019 6:18:16 GMT
Phoenix fucking crushed it. And I'm so happy this film is gonna make serious bank at the box office. Phoenix deserves all the accolades coming his way because he is one of the most dedicated actors on the planet. Also a lot of his great films flop at the box office so I'm happy that a lot of people are buying tickets to see this in theaters. 8.5/10 I loved his performance, probably one of his best if not the best I have seen him in. Someone said he doesnt make movies for money he does roles that challenge him and I am so glad he got the chance to play the greatest comic book super villain of all time IMO.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Oct 5, 2019 6:47:31 GMT
They changed the entire thing with Zazie Beetz’ character from the script. what was it
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 5, 2019 12:46:53 GMT
They changed the entire thing with Zazie Beetz’ character from the script. what was it Zazie Beetz’ character actually did go out with Arthur because she pitied him, then when she later made it clear that she wasn’t interested, he didn’t take it well.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Oct 5, 2019 20:14:26 GMT
The ambiguity of the ending is PERFECT because it leaves enough room to having an adequately-aged Joker against an adequately-aged Batman. If the movie is REALLY set in 1981, then you get a vast mismatch between Joker and Batman in terms of age. Yeah, genius work. Wise move. Well, if it's 1981, and Arthur is already 40-45 years old, while Bruce Wayne is only 7-10 years old... IMHO it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a 30 years old Batman pitted against an adequately-aged Joker/Fleck in the future to come. Considering the film as a part-reality, part-hallucination affair leaves VAST room to a probable future where you're getting THIS Joker against one mature/adult Batman. I think Batman would be 25-27 when he becomes Batman and arthur would be in his late 50s, when they do eventually battle. I dont think it is that big a deal as long as they fight, The Joker will always fight Batman. The actor & the director have both indicated this character is not going to be appearing in a Batman film. I saw an article that said Phoenix hated saying Thomas Wayne or anything tied to the Batman mythos.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 5, 2019 22:26:16 GMT
I think Batman would be 25-27 when he becomes Batman and arthur would be in his late 50s, when they do eventually battle. I dont think it is that big a deal as long as they fight, The Joker will always fight Batman. The actor & the director have both indicated this character is not going to be appearing in a Batman film. I saw an article that said Phoenix hated saying Thomas Wayne or anything tied to the Batman mythos. Joaquin Phoenix turned down the role of Doctor Strange because he didn’t want to do a role that would require him to sign on for multiple films. I would be shocked if he were to agree to ever playing the Joker again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 22:38:11 GMT
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 6, 2019 9:45:48 GMT
Its a good movie and I appreciate the different style of comic book inspired adaptation. Phoenix carries the story very well with a convincing portrayal of Arthur Fleck. The cinematography is spectacular and use of visual story telling is refreshing to see in a superhero movie. The shots of him dancing throughout the film is a good example of this.
However, as a "Joker" movie Im not totally sold. I just cant envisage this joker being smart enough to be the leader of a criminal posse or having the intelligence to take on Batman and remain a credible threat. Joker in all his animated and movie representations has had a cunning, suave, smart underlayer from his insane appearance. Now Joquains Joker definitely nails down the insane half of the character. But at the end of the day he still is severely mentally underdeveloped and the idea he can be the clown prince of crime is too farfetched. From that angle I can understand why some fans and critics are saying this is a Joker movie in name only and its really about a loner outcast who just happens to be interested in comedy and wears a clown outfit as his daytime job.
Overall its a good movie which is connecting with audiences it seems. I would give it 7/10.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2019 12:32:55 GMT
Its a good movie and I appreciate the different style of comic book inspired adaptation. Phoenix carries the story very well with a convincing portrayal of Arthur Fleck. The cinematography is spectacular and use of visual story telling is refreshing to see in a superhero movie. The shots of him dancing throughout the film is a good example of this. However, as a "Joker" movie Im not totally sold. I just cant envisage this joker being smart enough to be the leader of a criminal posse or having the intelligence to take on Batman and remain a credible threat. Joker in all his animated and movie representations has had a cunning, suave, smart underlayer from his insane appearance. Now Joquains Joker definitely nails down the insane half of the character. But at the end of the day he still is severely mentally underdeveloped and the idea he can be the clown prince of crime is too farfetched. From that angle I can understand why some fans and critics are saying this is a Joker movie in name only and its really about a loner outcast who just happens to be interested in comedy and wears a clown outfit as his daytime job. Overall its a good movie which is connecting with audiences it seems. I would give it 7/10. It's a darkly fascinating look at mental illness, it isn't a comic book movie. I want to give them credit for testing the limits of CBMs, but ultimately I'd go the other way and say it was a hijacking of the IP. If you made an identical film with the guy running for mayor named Larry Jones and called it Last Laugh, it's an arthouse flick and nine people see it. Call it Joker and throw in some Batman references and it sets October box office records. I'm curious to see its legs. My theater was mostly college kids and they didn't know what to make of it. I think they were expecting a lot more zaniness and CBM content, certainly a lot more humor. For what it was, it was incredible. The haunting score and trippy nature of the unreliable narrator angle gave the film a kind of ethereal quality. Phoenix is off the charts. I'd say give him the Oscar right now, if it weren't for Leo's performance in Once Upon A Time. I'd give the edge to Leo if only because he's doing something we haven't seen him do before. As great (and it really is amazing stuff) as Phoenix is in Joker, it's right in his wheelhouse. It feels like Leo had to put more effort into finding this character's voice than JP did finding Joker, even if Joker is definitely a more intense role. Then there's the fact that another guy just won an Oscar for the same character about ten years ago. It'll be interesting to see what the academy does, though I wouldn't complain either way. Back to the film itself, it's a fantastic exploration of mental illness and just about every complaint you can come up with in terms of writing (and I can come up with a few) can be explained away by the central character's loss of touch with reality. (Though my biggest disappointment was the scene revealing the woman was never with him. This was obvious, and honestly didn't need to be addressed at all; but once he goes into her apartment and she tells him to leave, that's all you need to know. The flashbacks of her next to him, and then him alone were an insult to the audience's intelligence. We understand what's happening here.) I thought once he killed his mother things were really going to go off the rails for Arthur, but he actually became more coherent-- his exposition on the Murray Franklin show was as straightforward as it gets regarding the subject matter being addressed throughout the entire film. It's the outside world that becomes unhinged at that point, as I felt the rioting and all that felt over the top for this kind of film. But considering the source, we have to wonder how much of that happened at all. That's the fun part and frankly one of the few reasons to rewatch such a depressing story: Trying to figure out how much you, the viewer, think is 'real' and what's just in Arthur's head. It works well as a standalone story, the fact that it's an interpretation of a comic book character is basically irrelevant. I wouldn't want this tied to any future Batman story and I thought the final shot of Bruce in the alley was redundant. This isn't his story, it's Joker's. It's like WB is contractually obligated to show the Waynes getting murdered in any film featuring a Batman character. All in all I'd also go 7/10. Not a movie you can watch over and over but definitely worth a viewing.
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 7, 2019 14:31:55 GMT
Its a good movie and I appreciate the different style of comic book inspired adaptation. Phoenix carries the story very well with a convincing portrayal of Arthur Fleck. The cinematography is spectacular and use of visual story telling is refreshing to see in a superhero movie. The shots of him dancing throughout the film is a good example of this. However, as a "Joker" movie Im not totally sold. I just cant envisage this joker being smart enough to be the leader of a criminal posse or having the intelligence to take on Batman and remain a credible threat. Joker in all his animated and movie representations has had a cunning, suave, smart underlayer from his insane appearance. Now Joquains Joker definitely nails down the insane half of the character. But at the end of the day he still is severely mentally underdeveloped and the idea he can be the clown prince of crime is too farfetched. From that angle I can understand why some fans and critics are saying this is a Joker movie in name only and its really about a loner outcast who just happens to be interested in comedy and wears a clown outfit as his daytime job. Overall its a good movie which is connecting with audiences it seems. I would give it 7/10. It's a darkly fascinating look at mental illness, it isn't a comic book movie. I want to give them credit for testing the limits of CBMs, but ultimately I'd go the other way and say it was a hijacking of the IP. If you made an identical film with the guy running for mayor named Larry Jones and called it Last Laugh, it's an arthouse flick and nine people see it. Call it Joker and throw in some Batman references and it sets October box office records. I'm curious to see its legs. My theater was mostly college kids and they didn't know what to make of it. I think they were expecting a lot more zaniness and CBM content, certainly a lot more humor. For what it was, it was incredible. The haunting score and trippy nature of the unreliable narrator angle gave the film a kind of ethereal quality. Phoenix is off the charts. I'd say give him the Oscar right now, if it weren't for Leo's performance in Once Upon A Time. I'd give the edge to Leo if only because he's doing something we haven't seen him do before. As great (and it really is amazing stuff) as Phoenix is in Joker, it's right in his wheelhouse. It feels like Leo had to put more effort into finding this character's voice than JP did finding Joker, even if Joker is definitely a more intense role. Then there's the fact that another guy just won an Oscar for the same character about ten years ago. It'll be interesting to see what the academy does, though I wouldn't complain either way. Back to the film itself, it's a fantastic exploration of mental illness and just about every complaint you can come up with in terms of writing (and I can come up with a few) can be explained away by the central character's loss of touch with reality. (Though my biggest disappointment was the scene revealing the woman was never with him. This was obvious, and honestly didn't need to be addressed at all; but once he goes into her apartment and she tells him to leave, that's all you need to know. The flashbacks of her next to him, and then him alone were an insult to the audience's intelligence. We understand what's happening here.) I thought once he killed his mother things were really going to go off the rails for Arthur, but he actually became more coherent-- his exposition on the Murray Franklin show was as straightforward as it gets regarding the subject matter being addressed throughout the entire film. It's the outside world that becomes unhinged at that point, as I felt the rioting and all that felt over the top for this kind of film. But considering the source, we have to wonder how much of that happened at all. That's the fun part and frankly one of the few reasons to rewatch such a depressing story: Trying to figure out how much you, the viewer, think is 'real' and what's just in Arthur's head. It works well as a standalone story, the fact that it's an interpretation of a comic book character is basically irrelevant. I wouldn't want this tied to any future Batman story and I thought the final shot of Bruce in the alley was redundant. This isn't his story, it's Joker's. It's like WB is contractually obligated to show the Waynes getting murdered in any film featuring a Batman character. All in all I'd also go 7/10. Not a movie you can watch over and over but definitely worth a viewing. I would also go with your conclusion that this is likely a hijacking of the IP, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because as you say without the association to the prime genre at the moment, this would make single digit opening returns. I believe this will have good legs. The outrage ''controversy'' over this movie has fermented impressive word of mouth across social and general media proving any publicity is good publicity, on top of being at least a decent movie it should have stamina to last. Joaquin’s Oscar chances depends obviously on movies that will be released soon in November that are Oscar baits. But he and Leo are probably shoe-ins for the Best Actor Category. I would personally give the edge to Leo though, simply because his acting is so damn natural and smooth in Once Upon. Joaquin did seem more try hardy and there were moments where I thought he was over-acting or at least forcing his laugh a little excessively (the scene just after he kills his mother). He did get more coherent towards the end which is strange considering that takes place after he gives up his psych meds. But going back to my main complaint, I feel he didn't become coherent enough to take on the mantle of being a supervillain that The Joker is. This version would be crushed in minutes versus The Batman to the point you would feel sympathy for the Joker because of his defined origin. Whereas Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson had the intellect to match Batman’s mental fortitude, Joaquin ends up being the poorly treated, abused mental patient that Batman would pity, not fear. And if you are going to use this as a DC Black label adaptation then you have to judge it based on the that and not just an examination of mental illness in a random mid-40s male who happens to dress as a clown for his job. I may be wrong but I read that Joaquin hated the idea of including the Wayne family as a subplot which would not shock me.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 7, 2019 15:22:00 GMT
I would also go with your conclusion that this is likely a hijacking of the IP, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because as you say without the association to the prime genre at the moment, this would make single digit opening returns. I believe this will have good legs. The outrage ''controversy'' over this movie has fermented impressive word of mouth across social and general media proving any publicity is good publicity, on top of being at least a decent movie it should have stamina to last. Joaquin’s Oscar chances depends obviously on movies that will be released soon in November that are Oscar baits. But he and Leo are probably shoe-ins for the Best Actor Category. I would personally give the edge to Leo though, simply because his acting is so damn natural and smooth in Once Upon. Joaquin did seem more try hardy and there were moments where I thought he was over-acting or at least forcing his laugh a little excessively (the scene just after he kills his mother). He did get more coherent towards the end which is strange considering that takes place after he gives up his psych meds. But going back to my main complaint, I feel he didn't become coherent enough to take on the mantle of being a supervillain that The Joker is. This version would be crushed in minutes versus The Batman to the point you would feel sympathy for the Joker because of his defined origin. Whereas Heath Ledger and Jack Nicholson had the intellect to match Batman’s mental fortitude, Joaquin ends up being the poorly treated, abused mental patient that Batman would pity, not fear. And if you are going to use this as a DC Black label adaptation then you have to judge it based on the that and not just an examination of mental illness in a random mid-40s male who happens to dress as a clown for his job. I may be wrong but I read that Joaquin hated the idea of including the Wayne family as a subplot which would not shock me. Yeah as fascinating a character as he is, I just don't see this as a comic book movie at all. I've seen other threads on the board asking where this ranks in the Batman movie pantheon. It isn't a Batman movie. It doesn't even want to be a Batman movie, it only uses the Wayne family as a ploy to get audiences interested in the story-- they didn't even impact the story at all, it was like they were added just so they could put them in the trailer. Again I understand why and it doesn't bother me too much, because I think they did something interesting at least, and otherwise this movie probably doesn't get made. But to me there's no way you can have a sensible discussion comparing Joaquin to Heath Ledger or Jack or any other iteration of the Joker in film, tv or print when this character is essentially Joker in name only. He's not a criminal mastermind or an agent of chaos, he's a tragic lost soul, wandering through life.
|
|