Joker (2019)

Not gonna lie, all these comments about this film being a worse taxi driver is making me want to watch that film :p

I haven't heard about this, do you have a link?

Hold the phone, guys.

It looks like reports of a Joker sequel have been greatly exaggerated.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Nov 20th 2019 at 1:16:14 PM

I don't see what that critique has to do with a theoretical sequel.

Edited by slimcoder on Nov 20th 2019 at 10:26:55 AM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

Does anyone else fear WB will try to make this movie be somehow tied to the DCU?

Like, what if they go and say that the Suicide Squad Joker is a copycat or just a brainwashed Robin like those theories that popped up before believed?

Or maybe i'm just rambling

Uni cat

@Draghinazzo Now that I'm on board with. Taxi Driver's one of those classics that actually manages to exceed the hype people built around it. If you want an actual gritty character study, Taxi Driver's a sure bet.

@Nouct Here ya go.

The quote in particular: “I basically said, ‘You could take this character and put him in any movie,’” Phoenix said. “So I did a photo shoot with the on-set photographer and we made posters where I photoshopped Joker into 10 classic movies: Rosemary’s Baby, Raging Bull, Yentl. If you see it, you’re like, ‘Yeah, I’d watch that movie.’ Yentl with Joker? That would be amazing!”

@slimcoder While I ultimately liked Joker (2019), there were times it felt too much like a Taxi Driver homage rather than its own thing, much less a story about...you know, the Joker. This didn't sit well with me, considering all the hype built around how daring and original the movie supposedly was. Not to mention Phillips' now infamous comment about how he wanted to sneak a real movie under the guise of a comic book movie.

Now it's becoming more and more likely that we'll actually be getting a sequel and Phoenix's idea of a pitch for making a sequel, was to just take several older classic movies and plaster Arthur Fleck in them. A series of "Joker" movies that are actually just pastiches of other movies with Joker in them does not sound promising.

So Joker is like a lot like other movies......... so?

That’s how a lot of movies or products in general are made these days. There is no such thing as originality. What matters in the end is execution & putting your own spin on it.

Besides Joker versions of such movies is a decent hook. That’s called putting a spin on an old idea.

Edited by slimcoder on Nov 20th 2019 at 2:48:45 AM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

A retread of a prior thing can be good on its own, but it can fall into just imitating flashy scenes without understanding the original or saying anything interesting. For instance, Batman v Superman retreads a lot of concepts from Watchmen, but dumber. Inversely, Coco has the same plot as Brave, but with a more compelling world and characters.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Nov 20th 2019 at 6:37:40 AM

So, of all things... Half-Life gets a new release and Joker gets a sequel.

My own problems with Joker notwithstanding ^note here's a movie about a comic book character when he's not in a comic book movie this feels an awful lot like Joker is getting it's own "Dark Knight-verse" and that thought displeases me.

This is why I spend more money seeing new Marvel films instead of DC ones. I don't want the edgy, cerebral Alternate Character Interpretation of the Joker. I want Joker showing up with laughing fish in a plan to poison Gotham Harbor.

I'm okay with a standalone "dark take" on the Joker but I didn't need to see more of it. Why not put Joker 2 under the DC Black label or something? It'd probably make a better comic than a film.

Also, the title "Joker 2" is terrible, but I don't have a better one. It's either "Joker 2" or something edgier like "Clown Prince of Crime" or "Send in the Clowns."

Edited by Soble on Nov 21st 2019 at 8:32:28 AM

I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!

Joker 2 - Society Harder.

Joker 2 - Live Free or Die a Clown.

Joker - Back 2 Society

Jokers.

Heck. I guess "Fleck" would work. Or "Athur."

Because the best way to name films is to take the character's first name (Logan) or epithet (Man of Steel, Dark Knight, The Wolverine), or some other catchy thing (Homecoming, Far from Home, Amazing Spider Man) if you lack a story arc to name it after (Dark Phoenix, Days of Future Past, Infinity War, Age of Ultron, etc)

If the hypothetical Luthor film got made they'd probably call it "Alexander" or "Granny's Peach Tea."

Edited by Soble on Nov 21st 2019 at 8:26:03 AM

I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!

If The Killing Joke didn't already have a movie, that'd be a good title.

It's been 3000 years…

I wouldn’t mind an adaptation of Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, released as “Luthor.”

Edited by KnownUnknown on Nov 21st 2019 at 8:59:58 AM

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

That would work pretty well.

Like Luthor is already a pretty intimidating name.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

No no, knowing WB, they will go now for Joker v Luthor, while showing Cheetah for her solo movie, and the we will get the Legion of Doom.

And then Black Manta, followed by Black Adam—wait.

It's been 3000 years…

Or knowing Todd Phillips, the Joker sequel will just be the first movie again, but set in Bangkok.

Is Joker in DCEU canon? I ask because with the Waynes as prominent as they are, it would be strange for a sequel not to feature Bruce in some capacity. Joe Cool wearing a clown mask is already unusual, whether or not it actually conflicts with anything in the DCEU.

I expect, then, that a sequel would have to feature the beginnings of Batman - 15 years would be long enough for Bruce to be an adult and short enough for Phoenix to plausibly play Fleck. I wonder if it might make sense to play it as a sort of anti-The Dark Knight: Bruce, obsessed with his own physical fitness since his parents' death and encouraged by an Alfred who sees a rebel against British colonialism as one of those who "just want to watch the world burn," does what we all know he does, and an escaped Joker tries and fails (likely thanks in part to Alfred) to show him that his habits of using his wealth to beat up lumpens does more harm that good.

Alternatively, since we've been told that the Joker of the later films isn't Fleck, Joker 2 could be about that Joker, say the Red Hood. Perhaps the economic issues leading the Red Hood to become the Red Hood are examined, and just why it is he identifies with Fleck.

My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.

As of right now, no. Joker (2019) is a film set in a canon completely separate from the DCEU. Now, some people (myself included) have speculated that Matt Reeves' The Batman will be retconned into the universe of Joker (2019) in some way or another due to the film's massive success, but there's been no official confirmation. For the time being, Joker (2019) is officially its own thing.

As for your point regarding the Wayne's and the need for Bruce to re-appear, I disagree. Arthur's conflict was solely with Thomas, he barely knew Bruce. It wouldn't be odd at all if this potential sequel didn't include Bruce as a prominent character, if at all.

Also, the name of the Wayne's Killer is Joe Chill, not Joe Cool.

Edited by 1upmushroom on Nov 22nd 2019 at 11:39:56 AM

I think it'd be odd because the previous film emphasized Arthur's influence on the riots affecting Bruce. Thomas died. This was Bruce's origin. I'd be shocked if the next film just ignored that.

I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!

Yeah, Joe Cool is Snoopy. Granted, that would be an interesting on Batman's origin...

Edited by GrandmasterKiramidHead on Nov 23rd 2019 at 3:39:51 AM

The Doctor is in.

I've heard of "the dog did it," but dang. XD

Princess Aurora is underrated, pass it on.

Having Batman meeting this version of Joker would be kind of interesting, because it'd inevitably come off as a class-based rivalry, which I don't think it ever has been in any other version. In this version, Batman would come off as something of a "revenge of the upper class" seeing as how his parents were killed in an anti-rich riot, and Joker is the icon of that riot.

I feel like that’s the case for Nolan’s Batman/Joker, except that wasn’t explicitly said. After all, that Joker burned a pile of cash just to prove a point.

It's been 3000 years…

TDK Joker was more “institutions vs (supposed) anarchy” than “rich vs poor.”

He burned the money not to stick it to people who had money, but because he had no need of it in the first place and wanted to mock organized crime for relying on it (and in other moments, mock the police for needing it to act against the criminals).

Edited by KnownUnknown on Dec 2nd 2019 at 3:22:59 AM

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.