I'm actively wondering if this is a Torch the Franchise and Run situation. Like... It feels like every thing I'm hearing about this movie is deliberately and blatantly geared to mock the original movie's fanbase and tank this particular "Joker" franchise so Phillips doesn't have to make another of these ever again. Especially with the whole "the main character is a loser and if you didn't get that the first time around you're a loser too" aspect and also said main character being murdered by a loony fan who takes on the Joker persona thing.
This movie was originally supposed to be a broadway show before COVID happened, so... Either that or Phillips got so focused on doing something different that he forgot to do something good. It's really hard to tell.
Edited by Cronosonic on Oct 5th 2024 at 6:47:58 PM
So to answer the incredibly well thought-out and provocative question of "Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker", I believe we have our answer: he doesn't HAVE to. Joker kills himself just fine (box-office wise).
Self-professed Wild Card who thinks cynicism isn't so bad.Actually, this would be the first live action movie having the Joker in it that bombs.
Batman 1966.
Batman 1989.
The Dark Knight.
The Suicide Squad.
Joker.
The Batman.
All of them box office hits.
Joker was not a decisive success factor in all of them. 1966 would've worked just as well with just Meredith, Gorshin and Newmar doing their magic since Romero was the most irrelevant villain there, and The Batman only had him in a cameo. But Joker 2 took a villain that previously was box office gold and apparently turned that into a flop.
This movie achieved what Jared Leto didn't. It literally out Morbiused Morbius.
Please remember that, ultimately, fictional works of entertainment are just that.“ Actually, this would be the first live action movie having the Joker in it that bombs.”
Well, Batman 66 couldn’t get rid of a bomb, that’s practically the same thing.
Uhhh just got out of the movie and my reaction was out loud “what the fuck was that” and my theater all burst out laughing and agreeing. It was a small crowd.
So uhhhh there’s a scene where Joker gets raped by guards and this apparently breaks him.
That’s an actual plot point in the movie. That’s how Todd breaks the Joker.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"![]()
It is a thing that would realistically break anyone.
But that brings up how the Joker isn't inherently a character suited for realism.
The first movie succeeded because it depicted the man about to become the Joker, and then his blooming into the role, not the Joker as such for a lengthy period of time.
Please remember that, ultimately, fictional works of entertainment are just that.Using something like prison rape in a way like this for this kind of character, and portraying it as something that actually gets him to realize he's a shit person and he should give up, is something that should be handled very delicately, but Todd Philips is not the person the handle it.
Oh boy, this is going to lead to a lot of jokes online if I know the internet.
Yeah, this movie feels like a waste of time but there are at least some scenes I liked, such as when the Phoenix actually gets to act like the Joker in the court, and some of the musical scenes, but it all feels like a waste of time and it was made out of spite.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"One thing all versions of Joker share is how they are stubbornly against improving themselves as human beings— from the Golden Age humorless thief to the Silver Age wacky prankster to the Modern Age monstrous murderer they all refuse to give up their ways. Trauma only would make them double down on their evil and being wronged would only provoke them to retaliate in spite.
The only way to make Jokers reform is taking Batman out of the equation and even then they only kind of stop doing evil and do nothing of note instead. They don't actively pursue any higher form of redemption. The Arthur Fleck Joker has no Batman so that leaves him aimless— most Jokers just fix on a Batman and opposing them gives them agency. This movie would probably work best if you try rationalizing Joker without Batman, but it looks like instead it gives up and the character just collapses without a motivation.
If the movie is supposed to be a statement on that then it's telling fans something they always knew— the Joker is supposed to be a foil for Batman!
Please remember that, ultimately, fictional works of entertainment are just that.Yeah I was wondering if the Waynes were going to be brought up, and I thought for sure Arthur's possible relation to Thomas would have been talked about in the court scenes.
But nada.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"It's a very old running joke.
I left 4 Chan because I felt visiting it was making me a worse person, but I used to visit regularly and everyone was so sick of the "Why Batman doesn't kill the Joker" question that it became "Why doesn't Batman rape the Joker" as a quick throwback to anyone asking the old question and then they created a meme about Gordon pressuring Batman to rape Joker and then saying "I'll do it myself then."
Please remember that, ultimately, fictional works of entertainment are just that.I believe it's better to take out "deconstructionist" talk altogether, and get right to what I'm thinking the heart of the first movie was: a potential Joker origin story. I disagree entirely with the notion that the original film deconstructed the idea of a Joker origin story, viewing it instead as playing one to play it straight. It was dark, it was twisted, it was fucked up, it was funny, and it was raw. The line "I'LL TELL YOU WHAT YOU GET!!! YOU GET WHAT YOU FUCKING DESERVE!!!", it was delivered with a raw, harsh sincerity, both actors carrying that scene immaculately. And I don't appreciate the sentiment that you had to be part of the "Misaimed Fandom" in order to appreciate the film for being this Start of Darkness romp for our titular Villain Protagonist.
THAT BEING SAID… I certainly believe that the sequel is a deconstructionist take. I'm fine with the idea of that. On paper, why wouldn't one want to take apart some of the more unsavory things the first film may have implied? Why wouldn't a potential sequel do its part to highlight that no, being The Joker is not REMOTELY a good idea for all future aspiring anarchists to strive for? My problem is that it fumbled the ball hard. That and the rape scene, but that's a WHOLE different can of worms I won't even BEGIN to go into.
Self-professed Wild Card who thinks cynicism isn't so bad.Many would argue that the Joker works best without an origin story. I'm not against it as long as the idea is good, but it's difficult to find a balance between making the man who becomes Joker too sympathetic and too unsympathetic. On one hand you want him somewhat relatable and tragic if people are meant to care at all when the focus is on him. If the main focus were on Batman just saying "this guy was always a jerk" still works because he's just the antagonist and Batman 89 proves that true.
Then agin if you make him too relatable then it becomes difficult to buy him as the most depraved and fiendish of Batman's foes, and there's plenty of other Batman villains who work better as pitiable foes, like Harvey Dent, Victor Fries or Croc.
Please remember that, ultimately, fictional works of entertainment are just that.It’s legit one of those sequels that feel like it’s actively trying to rip everything the first one did. The courtroom scenes mostly recap the first movie to remove the sense of mystery regarding what was real and what wasn’t.
Except for the Wayne plot line. It’s really strange they aren’t ever brought up in this one.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"I mean, they can recast him, and outside of Bruce, the fact that they don't bring up that the Wayne murders were indirectly caused by Arthur or his possible relation to Thomas is really jarring.
Especially since the latter is one of the first film's mysteries that isn't explained by this movie.
"The Black Rage makes us strong, because we must resist its temptations every day of our lives or be forever damned!"

Honestly, I hope this kills attempts to make the Joker "serious" and "edgy" in all media.
Especially in the comics, since we're supposed to be following "one" Joker.
I miss the days where Joker was an actual supervillain more known for ridiculous schemes such as putting smiles on Gotham's fishery to get royalties or hijacking a stand-up comedy to reward himself the a trophy.
All these "serious takes" of the Joker are the reasons why we even have this stupid question from casual audience:
"Why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker?"