|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 7, 2019 18:15:50 GMT
The "Proto-Joker" idea is stupid, lame, silly and idiot. Even 'GOTHAM' kinda backpedaled on that and made Jeremiah Valeska the true Joker of the Gotham TV series universe, even if he - along with his twin brother Jerome Valeska - were originally supposed to be "Proto-Jokers".
JOKER doesn't take inspiration from anyone in the world. He feels unique. He would not rip anyone's identity off. So there couldn't be any "Real Joker" taking inspiration from Arthur Fleck. Such a stupid idea.
Arthur Fleck is THE Joker of this universe, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 8, 2019 22:48:44 GMT
Did he kill the lady at the end in the crazy hospital? We have to assume Yes, since the blood trail.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 8, 2019 22:49:32 GMT
Do you think he was really Thomas Wayne's son or not? No, it was shown that no. He was adopted by the mother.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 8, 2019 22:50:52 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. We have to assume that this Joker only exists in its own universe. No Batman. No crossing over with anything else.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 13, 2019 0:34:00 GMT
Did he kill the lady at the end in the crazy hospital? Yes, I would think so.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 15, 2019 0:33:49 GMT
My scenario:
In 1981, Arthur Fleck is 30 years old (canonical), but looking considerably older than that for many reasons.
Bruce Wayne is 12 years old.
If Bruce becomes a "proto-version" of Batman when he is 25, then Arthur/Joker would be 43 by then. Sounds proper for a Batman vs Joker scenario. When Batman is 30 years old, Joker would be 48. That's totally plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 24, 2019 1:42:52 GMT
Finally got to watch it and I really liked it a lot.
I loved Arthur little speech near the end when he's on the Murray show.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 5, 2019 19:03:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 11, 2019 11:54:18 GMT
Finally saw it this weekend. And yes, Phoenix does deserve an Oscar nom. As for the film itself, well once the tone was set it really held no surprises for me. The imagined relationship with the neighbour was obvious before he reveal and his descent into madness predictable. I've got nothing against dark and nihlistic films and enjoyed it on that level. As a CBM, I actually forgot it was one. It was so far removed from the comic book world it didn't actually need any element of the DC canon to be mentioned...the name Joker and the other references could almost be seen as a marketing tool. It was a decent film about a man who spirals out of control...change his name to The Clown, Gotham to New York, and the Waynes into the Smiths, and frankly it would be the same film but without the success the brand has helped it achieve. 7/10
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 13, 2019 22:34:57 GMT
the name Joker and the other references could almost be seen as a marketing tool. It was a decent film about a man who spirals out of control...change his name to The Clown, Gotham to New York, and the Waynes into the Smiths, and frankly it would be the same film but without the success the brand has helped it achieve. 7/10 You can say the same about THOR or IRON MAN. Especially the former one... Said that, the spirit of the comic book character is on there, 100%, despite having built this "origin story" from the scratch. So no, you're wrong about the "marketing tool".
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 14, 2019 9:58:35 GMT
the name Joker and the other references could almost be seen as a marketing tool. It was a decent film about a man who spirals out of control...change his name to The Clown, Gotham to New York, and the Waynes into the Smiths, and frankly it would be the same film but without the success the brand has helped it achieve. 7/10 You can say the same about THOR or IRON MAN. Especially the former one... Said that, the spirit of the comic book character is on there, 100%, despite having built this "origin story" from the scratch. So no, you're wrong about the "marketing tool". You could, you have, and I don't agree. And I'll leave it that because you drag some stuff out way too long. I didn't say it was a marketing tool...I said it could almost be seen as one. If the intention was not known that it was based on the DC character, and those three names - Joker, Gotham and Wayne - were not used, it would basically be the same film, without the box office...if it would be made at all.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 14, 2019 12:19:13 GMT
You can say the same about THOR or IRON MAN. Especially the former one... Said that, the spirit of the comic book character is on there, 100%, despite having built this "origin story" from the scratch. So no, you're wrong about the "marketing tool". You could, you have, and I don't agree. And I'll leave it that because you drag some stuff out way too long. I didn't say it was a marketing tool...I said it could almost be seen as one. If the intention was not known that it was based on the DC character, and those three names - Joker, Gotham and Wayne - were not used, it would basically be the same film, without the box office...if it would be made at all. If you delete those names, the movie would be wisely accused to be a rip-off of the DC Comics universe. Because the spirit of the fictional city and those specific characters are on there, as well as many fascinating details culled from previous comic book/movie iterations.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 14, 2019 12:28:05 GMT
You could, you have, and I don't agree. And I'll leave it that because you drag some stuff out way too long. I didn't say it was a marketing tool...I said it could almost be seen as one. If the intention was not known that it was based on the DC character, and those three names - Joker, Gotham and Wayne - were not used, it would basically be the same film, without the box office...if it would be made at all. If you delete those names, the movie would be wisely accused to be a rip-off of the DC Comics universe. Because the spirit of the fictional city and those specific characters are on there, as well as many fascinating details culled from previous comic book/movie iterations. The clown make up would maybe raise some accusations. The circumstances surrounding Wayne's death certainly would. I don't think much else would if you changed the the names (Wayne, Joker, Gotham, and I forgot Arkham). Gotham evokes New York, way more than New York evokes Gotham
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 15, 2019 20:01:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 16, 2019 12:44:58 GMT
That's the JOKER. From comic books and movies. It's the real character on there, not just a fool wearing make-up. That's his essence. If you say so...you act as if you are the only person who ever read a comic with the Joker And?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 16, 2019 14:14:00 GMT
That's the JOKER. From comic books and movies. It's the real character on there, not just a fool wearing make-up. That's his essence. And? And it's a triumph. Another triumph under the belt of the Batman Movie Franchise. Enjoy it, if you're a fan.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 16, 2019 14:54:08 GMT
And it's a triumph. Another triumph under the belt of the Batman Movie Franchise. Enjoy it, if you're a fan. Again....and? You posted elsewhere...it's news that's on the web...why bother putting it in a reply to me?
|
|