Jump to content

Joker origin film - Joaquin Phoenix Confirmed


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, englishbob said:

. The Joker character's backstory just didn't need to be told did it?


I thought it complemented the character, the way you get to know why Joker is the villain he is. 
 

someone on YouTube wrote:

 

1989: throw him into chemicals to become Joker

2019: throw him in a society 

 

Backstory add depth and character progression. It explains why Bruce Wayne is Batman, and without a backstory, a villain becomes a one dimensional caricature.

 

Quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except Nolan and Ledger's Joker is so compelling for the exact opposite reason. 

 

Not necessarily disagreeing with you but I don't think there's another 'universe' that has produced such a varied collection of stories. Batman and his cast of characters have been in every kind of tale you could imagine. I thought Joker was daring to do what the comics have been doing for decades with just dropping the character in to a world of their choosing and seeing if it fits. I thought it worked, I was absolutely glued to the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KartoffelKopf said:

Except Nolan and Ledger's Joker is so compelling for the exact opposite reason. 

 

Exactly my view. Same as John Doe in "Seven". Unless of course Hollywood are making his backstory now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wh

3 minutes ago, englishbob said:

 

Exactly my view. Same as John Doe in "Seven". Unless of course Hollywood are making his backstory now?

 

Probably as a series for a streaming service.

 

I wonder who's film the director is going to copy this time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2021 at 20:26, KartoffelKopf said:

Except Nolan and Ledger's Joker is so compelling for the exact opposite reason. 

 

Not necessarily disagreeing with you but I don't think there's another 'universe' that has produced such a varied collection of stories. Batman and his cast of characters have been in every kind of tale you could imagine. I thought Joker was daring to do what the comics have been doing for decades with just dropping the character in to a world of their choosing and seeing if it fits. I thought it worked, I was absolutely glued to the screen.

 

 

Good post!

 

Nolan's Joker was very well written, and perfectly executed by Ledger so I would say that's the exception rather than the rule. Lets pretend Ledger didn't die, unless the next Batman movies included some backstory then I think the novelty would wear off very quickly. Ledger was great because it was completely new and it took everyone by surprise. But unless you add more depth to that character, then before you know it it becomes predictable and stereotypical. 

 

After first watching The Dark Night I was more or less satisfied, loved the movie and loved Ledgers performance and that was kinda it.  After watching Phoenix's Joker on the other hand I wanted a sequel right then and there because of the ending. It was like the entire movie was a build up of whats to come. That scene in the end where he gets pulled out of the car and stands in front of the cheering crowd mob and uses blood to paint his face.....it made me think holy cow that's a true agent of chaos. The perfect villain! As someone once said, children loves heroes and adults understands villains. 

 

There is absolutely no reason to compare Ledger and Phoenix, because its two completely different type of movies. Its possible to love them both, and I do!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, schmojo said:

If Ledger was still around, we'd have probably seen him rolling around in a pimped-out Jokertank to a Pat Benatar song by now.


I imagine he would’ve just appeared in the Dark Knight Rises (if I remember rightly Nolan had a plan to include him originally) then bowed out with Bale. The cast of that trilogy have all had enough sense to avoid getting involved in the current festival of garbage that is the DCEU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 21/08/2020 at 12:18, ZOK said:

The thing with Joker, putting the wasted story aside, is that Phoenix does a good turn in the flick, but it’s been whooped up to be something it’s clearly not. It holds up for an hour or so, and then it’s wasted too. And stick it next to Keitel in Bad Lieutenant, or more equitably Sandler in Uncut Gems, and it just seems like it’s a bit of a joke (ha ha). Maybe even Nick Cage in Bad Lieutenant now I come to think about it.

 

And De Niro stinks.


This should be pinned to every page really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/03/2021 at 13:08, Stevie said:

 

 

 

 

After watching Phoenix's Joker on the other hand I wanted a sequel right then and there because of the ending. It was like the entire movie was a build up of whats to come. That scene in the end where he gets pulled out of the car and stands in front of the cheering crowd mob and uses blood to paint his face.....it made me think ...

 

 

I get what you're saying about the movie feeling like a build-up but ... Nah. What made this story compelling was Joker's experience of the world, as a psychotic outcast. Take that away by making him a charismatic leader of a gang of super-villains and it just wouldn't feel like the same universe. 

 

I'm sure it would be possible to make a great movie about the rise of the Joker, starting off from pretty much where this story ends. But it shouldn't be connected to this film, or star Phoenix. Ledger's joker could have done it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anne Summers said:

I'm sure it would be possible to make a great movie about the rise of the Joker, starting off from pretty much where this story ends. But it shouldn't be connected to this film, or star Phoenix. Ledger's joker could have done it.

 

That sounds interesting. I just know that I wanted more 🍿

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Anne Summers said:

 

I get what you're saying about the movie feeling like a build-up but ... Nah. What made this story compelling was Joker's experience of the world, as a psychotic outcast. Take that away by making him a charismatic leader of a gang of super-villains and it just wouldn't feel like the same universe. 

 

I'm sure it would be possible to make a great movie about the rise of the Joker, starting off from pretty much where this story ends. But it shouldn't be connected to this film, or star Phoenix. Ledger's joker could have done it.

 

I don't get this. It's basically saying the film was good, Phoenix was excellent, but don't continue? Surely it'd be of a similar quality and continue in a similiar vein?

 

I've seen a few people say similarly on the basis that to have the character continue would just be silly, which I don't get at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Festoon said:

 

I don't get this. It's basically saying the film was good, Phoenix was excellent, but don't continue? Surely it'd be of a similar quality and continue in a similiar vein?

 

I've seen a few people say similarly on the basis that to have the character continue would just be silly, which I don't get at all.

It's just my opinion at the moment. Maybe someone could do it and it would be great. 

But there's a specific reason I don't think it would be. Which is that the first film is set in a realistic world rather than the sci-fi/cartoon world of Batman and Joker. 

I just can't imagine Phoenix's Joker commanding an army of goons and stuff like that. 

Maybe it would work, I dunno. It would be better if he was treated more like Hannibal Lecter or someone like that, rather than having him suddenly morph into the Joker we're all used to. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:

It's just my opinion at the moment. Maybe someone could do it and it would be great. 

But there's a specific reason I don't think it would be. Which is that the first film is set in a realistic world rather than the sci-fi/cartoon world of Batman and Joker. 

I just can't imagine Phoenix's Joker commanding an army of goons and stuff like that. 

Maybe it would work, I dunno. It would be better if he was treated more like Hannibal Lecter or someone like that, rather than having him suddenly morph into the Joker we're all used to. 

 

 

Presumably though, seeing as that's the approach the director took in the first film, that that is the approach he would take to a sequel? Surely the original director would be the right person for the job? 

 

I notice this with Mare of Easttown too - people are like "Perfect! Don't make any more" which, to me, is weird. If there's more to be said about a character then go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

Presumably though, seeing as that's the approach the director took in the first film, that that is the approach he would take to a sequel? Surely the original director would be the right person for the job? 

 

I notice this with Mare of Easttown too - people are like "Perfect! Don't make any more" which, to me, is weird. If there's more to be said about a character then go for it.

I haven't watched Mare of Easttown at all, I keep seeing it mentioned though. Sounds like I should watch it. I think the name put me off, I assumed it's about a female horse. Or is it Mare as in shorthand for "nightmare"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anne Summers said:

I haven't watched Mare of Easttown at all, I keep seeing it mentioned though. Sounds like I should watch it. I think the name put me off, I assumed it's about a female horse. Or is it Mare as in shorthand for "nightmare"?

 

It's the first name of Winslet's character, rather prosaically. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Festoon said:

 

It's the first name of Winslet's character, rather prosaically. 

Literally the only word you could have used that would make it seem less appealing to me than it already did was "Winslet". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:

Literally the only word you could have used that would make it seem less appealing to me than it already did was "Winslet". 

 

Ha ha! She's really good but a lot of the reasons people are saying so are utterly daft - e.g. she seems like a normal person and not super glamourous!

 

They may have heard of acting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.