Current Events > Joker 2 bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

DnDer posted...

And I think Batman might be kind of wrong.

Gordon is the exception that proves (tests) the rule. Exception. And Batman (of all people) is a bit naive to think it couldn't happen to someone more normal and less stalwart than, say, the one lone, good cop in a city of bad cops.

I bet, in the DC universe, if you took some random kid and gave him the worst day ever--say, killed his parents in front of him--it would more than likely shatter his psyche so bad he channels that broken energy into a tour de force of excessive force across his home town. At a minimum. With the only distinguishing feature being which direction (or which targets) you pointed him at.

Is everyone one bad day away? Nah.

But enough of them that Joker isn't really that off base, and Batman throws it in Joker's face to keep himself from realizing what a knifes edge he walks every night he goes out.

A spicy take, I know, but I don't think it's that wild. Just a little spicy.

normal people dont hurt others after having a bad day

source the majority of the world is good in real life

YoshiMitsurugi posted...

Just wait until everyone sees the ending. Yikes!

Please spoil it for me.

There's a lot of weird takes in this topic.

Joker is about mental health, the failures of society to meet those with mental health (like BPD) with kindness and support, and how DECADES of being abused and neglected, without a community of their own, can lead to a breakdown where they break.

From a mental health lens, it is really the best way I've ever seen to explain how "The Joker" would be how he is. Is it unsettling, uncomfortable, and frighteningly real to the point of leaving us feeling just a gross way? Absolutely. And that is the point.

If you look at the Batman rogues gallery, I would argue a lot of his best foes are not "supervillains" as much as they are an aspect of broken social structures, which makes sense given what the Wayne's have traditionally meant in the lore and their efforts to "fix" those social gaps in Gotham. It is the natural result of those gaps not being addressed.

I get the idea that some people don't want this analysis of the Joker in this way. That's fine. But to argue it is objectively bad? Nah, it was a wonderful performance and a well crafted film that wasn't for you.

Internet dislikes something new?! I'm shocked!!!

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

There's a lot of weird takes in this topic.

Joker is about mental health, the failures of society to meet those with mental health (like BPD) with kindness and support, and how DECADES of being abused and neglected, without a community of their own, can lead to a breakdown where they break.

From a mental health lens, it is really the best way I've ever seen to explain how "The Joker" would be how he is. Is it unsettling, uncomfortable, and frighteningly real to the point of leaving us feeling just a gross way? Absolutely. And that is the point.

If you look at the Batman rogues gallery, I would argue a lot of his best foes are not "supervillains" as much as they are an aspect of broken social structures, which makes sense given what the Wayne's have traditionally meant in the lore and their efforts to "fix" those social gaps in Gotham. It is the natural result of those gaps not being addressed.

I get the idea that some people don't want this analysis of the Joker in this way. That's fine. But to argue it is objectively bad? Nah, it was a wonderful performance and a well crafted film that wasn't for you.

Is it possible to be well crafted when its just lifting wholesale from two other movies?

Didn't care for the first one, this one sounds worse.

Sometimes a villain doesn't need to be relatable, they just need to be punchable.

R_Jackal posted...

Didn't care for the first one, this one sounds worse.

Sometimes a villain doesn't need to be relatable, they just need to be punchable.

It's more important for the villain to be relatable in some way if they're the main character and primary focus of the story I think.

A Joker sequel should have taken the opportunity to break the characters mind more while in prison making them break out and do some kind of Joker villainous actions that ends with him getting captured by cameo Batman and sent to Arkham where he meets Harley.

3rd movie would had been a Joker and Harley team up in the form of a Batman movie.

I'm not surprised. WB lacks the courage to fully commit to the bit.

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

It's a valid opinion. Joker took one of the greatest comic book villains of all time and made him a product of bullying who couldn't take it anymore, rather than a born psychopath who inherently loves chaos like he should be.

At least four of the Joker's established back stories (which you should take with a grain of salt because we hear them from the Joker, who is a notoriously unreliable narrator) portray him as a product of bullying and unfair treatment by society. Which he uses to justify his schemes in many circumstances.

Some portrayals downplay this in favor of him just doing it for the laugh. Others emphasize him doing it as a parallel to Batman himself, but it's not like they came up with a whole cloth new sympathetic backstory for the movie

Musicals need to stop hiding in advertising they are musicals. It only makes tons of people disappointed when they watch a movie and are surprised its a musical.

Most people knew it would be a stinker based on their attempt to make it a musical

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

There's a lot of weird takes in this topic.

Joker is about mental health, the failures of society to meet those with mental health (like BPD) with kindness and support, and how DECADES of being abused and neglected, without a community of their own, can lead to a breakdown where they break.

From a mental health lens, it is really the best way I've ever seen to explain how "The Joker" would be how he is. Is it unsettling, uncomfortable, and frighteningly real to the point of leaving us feeling just a gross way? Absolutely. And that is the point.

If you look at the Batman rogues gallery, I would argue a lot of his best foes are not "supervillains" as much as they are an aspect of broken social structures, which makes sense given what the Wayne's have traditionally meant in the lore and their efforts to "fix" those social gaps in Gotham. It is the natural result of those gaps not being addressed.

I get the idea that some people don't want this analysis of the Joker in this way. That's fine. But to argue it is objectively bad? Nah, it was a wonderful performance and a well crafted film that wasn't for you.

Yeah I don't really get people boiling it down to "one bad day", the movie makes it clear his entire life treated him shittily (he even felt like his name "Happy" was a cruel joke because he'd never once been happy in his life) and getting beaten up by 3 teens on the subway on the day he got fired was just the final straw.

DnDer posted...

And I think Batman might be kind of wrong.

Gordon is the exception that proves (tests) the rule. Exception. And Batman (of all people) is a bit naive to think it couldn't happen to someone more normal and less stalwart than, say, the one lone, good cop in a city of bad cops.

I bet, in the DC universe, if you took some random kid and gave him the worst day ever--say, killed his parents in front of him--it would more than likely shatter his psyche so bad he channels that broken energy into a tour de force of excessive force across his home town. At a minimum. With the only distinguishing feature being which direction (or which targets) you pointed him at.

Is everyone one bad day away? Nah.

But enough of them that Joker isn't really that off base, and Batman throws it in Joker's face to keep himself from realizing what a knifes edge he walks every night he goes out.

A spicy take, I know, but I don't think it's that wild. Just a little spicy.

What joker doesn't realize is Batman is his proof. Bruce had one bad day and now he pulverizes criminals far beyond what they probably deserve. He just managed to hold on to one strong moral conviction and that's to not kill. But he's still clearly mentally broken. He recruits children in his ear in crime with a obvious penchant for orphans like himself.

Joker sadly, doesnt really show anything without his foil in Batman. Add in most want make him the most deranged serial killer in DC instead of the manipulating to a twisted tune.

Calling the day you see your parents gunned down in front of you bad seems pretty reductionist.

AceMos posted...

and the awful animated film

To be fair if you ignore the first part of TKJ animated movie, the rest is pretty good.

The idea that Batman proves Joker's point is dumb. You can't call him out on excessive force and all that rigamarole because he isn't in our universe. In his world, where vigilantism isn't just tolerated but outright celebrated, Batman is an obvious rebuttal. Bruce had the one bad day Joker did and he broke down, but he channeled it into doing good.

Joker isn't arguing that anyone can have a breakdown, he's arguing that that breakdown can turn anybody into him. The Nolan movies change a lot, but that's one line that could have come straight from the comic.

What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone's as ugly as you? You're alone!

rip

Joker bad

DnDer posted...

What about Lady Gaga would make a movie bad out of the gate like that? Her Oscar-nominated acting chops, or her Oscar-nominated-and-winning music chops?

Man, even the audience beats you over the head with it

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

There's a lot of weird takes in this topic.

Joker is about mental health, the failures of society to meet those with mental health (like BPD) with kindness and support, and how DECADES of being abused and neglected, without a community of their own, can lead to a breakdown where they break.

From a mental health lens, it is really the best way I've ever seen to explain how "The Joker" would be how he is. Is it unsettling, uncomfortable, and frighteningly real to the point of leaving us feeling just a gross way? Absolutely. And that is the point.

If you look at the Batman rogues gallery, I would argue a lot of his best foes are not "supervillains" as much as they are an aspect of broken social structures, which makes sense given what the Wayne's have traditionally meant in the lore and their efforts to "fix" those social gaps in Gotham. It is the natural result of those gaps not being addressed.

I get the idea that some people don't want this analysis of the Joker in this way. That's fine. But to argue it is objectively bad? Nah, it was a wonderful performance and a well crafted film that wasn't for you.

Yup. It was a film about mental health and the systems that fail.
That said, the issue with the movie is that the Joker part is just tacked on. You could get rid of the comic tie ins and end up with the same movie and message.

Shamino posted...

Yup. It was a film about mental health and the systems that fail.
That said, the issue with the movie is that the Joker part is just tacked on. You could get rid of the comic tie ins and end up with the same movie and message.

However the choice to attach Joker to it legitimately cheapens and perverts any mental health message it's trying to make.

R_Jackal posted...

However the choice to attach Joker to it legitimately cheapens and perverts any mental health message it's trying to make.

I disagree with that entirely.

I think it is true to what the Joker would be like, and attaching it to that IP did bring WAY more people to watch it.

But I knew going in that it was not a DC film at all so that wasn't an issue.

R_Jackal posted...

However the choice to attach Joker to it legitimately cheapens and perverts any mental health message it's trying to make.

Yeah. Phoenix gave a great performance and was believable as was the mental health system being broken. But that message is lost when the Joker is attached to it and suddenly a bunch of people celebrate what Arthur became.

And the fact that the movie is no fun makes it a terrible comic book movie. There's no joy, no nothing, just misery all around.
Even the new Batman movie with Pattinson has more fun and joy in it, and it's pretty dark.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

I disagree with that entirely.

I think it is true to what the Joker would be like, and attaching it to that IP did bring WAY more people to watch it.

But I knew going in that it was not a DC film at all so that wasn't an issue.

While attaching Joker to the movie brought more people in, did they leave with the right message?

Shamino posted...

While attaching Joker to the movie brought more people in, did they leave with the right message?

I would hope so.

For context I work with at risk and hard to serve youth and young adults. So I've seen and worked with people who have had experiences like Arthur Fleck. I worked closely with a youth who ended up killing someone while high on meth. So the film definitely struck a cord with me and was very powerful.

I knew heading into it that it was a very loose adaptation of the Joker and basically just one person's interpretation of a version of Joker.

I am sad for anyone who took the wrong message from that film because they did a fantastic job of showing how he was abused and mistreated and the impacts of lack of support does to some people while still putting the responsibility on him. He is a victim of horrible neglect throughout and also the perpetrator of terrible crimes.

pegusus123456 posted...

Joker isn't arguing that anyone can have a breakdown, he's arguing that that breakdown can turn anybody into him. The Nolan movies change a lot, but that's one line that could have come straight from the comic.

What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone's as ugly as you? You're alone!

Isn't the whole point of Joker and Batman is that they're the two sides of the same exact coin? Didn't even Nicholson's portrayal have that moment, too? "I created you, you created me," and so on?

One bad day can turn you into a broken person who takes their brokenness and turns it into violence in the streets. The only difference in where that violence manifests (and this is much more a take through the lens of today, but I think you could see it if you look back, but that's a "curtains are blue" discussion at that point) is where you're privileged enough to be pointed in the direction of.

Batman is Joker is Batman, keep going on and on, because neither can kill the other, or the game is over at that point, since they can't be who they are without their dichotomy.

Shamino posted...

But that message is lost when the Joker is attached to it and suddenly a bunch of people celebrate what Arthur became.

Is it? Or is it a display of how much more broken the system is, and how much bigger the system (society, the one we live in, lol) is that's broken?

Maybe it's a generous interpretation, but I saw what happened on the streets to be a macro reflection of Arthur's micro-examination of the mental health system. What happens when that system fails, writ large? <gestures at people celebrating Joker>

I heard it went woke

Everything Ive read about it made it sound like nobody involved actually wanted to make it. It sounds like a sequel made begrudgingly

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

It's a valid opinion. Joker took one of the greatest comic book villains of all time and made him a product of bullying who couldn't take it anymore, rather than a born psychopath who inherently loves chaos like he should be.

Depends on which origin story you go with. Most versions involve him being a sane two-bit criminal until he falls into a vat of chemicals that change his hair and skin color and drives him insane (the most common version includes this + some additional psychological trauma that occurred around the same time. This trauma varies SLIGHTLY between versions.) There is also an origin story version where Joker isn't insane at all-- he just pretends to be crazy so he can avoid the death penalty.

AceMos posted...

normal people dont hurt others after having a bad day
source the majority of the world is good in real life

Well, not to the point of maiming or killing them, anyway. Usually (way too many domestic, child, elder, and animal abusers out there) And then there are the less direct/less intentional examples, where someone has a bad day, gets drunk/snorts coke/shoots meth and ends up hitting somebody with their car. Or comes to work drunk/tweaking/whatever and gets someone killed. You can also have robberies-gone-wrong when the person has a bad day and needs to steal some quick cash for drugs to self-medicate with.

DnDer posted...

Isn't the whole point of Joker and Batman is that they're the two sides of the same exact coin? Didn't even Nicholson's portrayal have that moment, too? "I created you, you created me," and so on?

One bad day can turn you into a broken person who takes their brokenness and turns it into violence in the streets. The only difference in where that violence manifests (and this is much more a take through the lens of today, but I think you could see it if you look back, but that's a "curtains are blue" discussion at that point) is where you're privileged enough to be pointed in the direction of.

Batman is Joker is Batman, keep going on and on, because neither can kill the other, or the game is over at that point, since they can't be who they are without their dichotomy.

I just fundamentally disagree with that interpretation of the characters. Beyond the extreme surface level of "they both do violence" and both having a bad day, the two of them are different in every respect.

pegusus123456 posted...

I just fundamentally disagree with that interpretation of the characters. Beyond the extreme surface level of "they both do violence" and both having a bad day, the two of them are different in every respect.

Two sides of the same coin basically means while the same still opposites in some regards right?

Batman and joker are also both mentally broken they just went different directions with their crazy. Batman is violent and paranoid. Always seeing the potential threats he uses violence and heavy planning because he needs control. Joker is violent and suffers from madness. He's let go of trying to control anything he sows chaos and ultimately doesn't care what happens as long as he's having some fun.

Got myself spoiled on the ending, and while it might be different actually watching it, what I read looks both like something written begrudgingly to appease WB wanting another hit movie and something in response to the wide range of people who somehow managed to not understand the first movie despite it being as subtle as a brick to the face.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Two sides of the same coin basically means while the same still opposites in some regards right?

Batman and joker are also both mentally broken they just went different directions with their crazy. Batman is violent and paranoid. Always seeing the potential threats he uses violence and heavy planning because he needs control. Joker is violent and suffers from madness. He's let go of trying to control anything he sows chaos and ultimately doesn't care what happens as long as he's having some fun.

in the killing joke TWO people have a a very very bad day and neither one of them went crazy

AceMos posted...

in the killing joke TWO people have a a very very bad day and neither one of them went crazy

Not everyone will. The point is it can happen.

Also Jim says do it by the book yet sends a vigilante who he knows ain't got a history of doing it by book. I love the story but that was poor writing

after seeing the movie, i can confirm that Joker Folie Deux is indeed bad.

like wtf did i just watch... there was no goddamn reason for a second movie let alone making it a fucking musical when the first wasnt!

I coulda $wore phoenix $aid he was one and done for joker.

Is the ending really as stupid as I hear it is?

I just think it's really funny how so much rage on 4chan right now about this movie is that Arthur/Joker, who incels apparently identify with a lot, was implied to be sodomized by guards.

From reading a summary of the movie it feels rather bleak and unnecessary.

What is it with Hollywood and just stripe mining comic characters? Unless its Marvel who have somewhat of a handle and respect for their own IP.

It was bizzare, which is a real shame as I really liked the first movie. Nice thing though, caught the 345 show with the mrs and we had the entire theater to ourselves

like the theater was full last night and i managed to see some people walking out throughout the movie... lol

and btw, shame on the movie for misleading me.

cause when i saw Phoenix and Gaga on the staircase, i was expecting both to recreate what i like to call "The Society Dance" from the first movie... lol

Smashingpmkns posted...

Not like the first was any good either

Yup. Original character dropped into another Batman without Batman world while being a cheap version of significantly better Scorcese movies.

Joker is joever

Is this "nobody said it was a musical" thing legit? Even I knew it was a musical, like a year ago.

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

Is this "nobody said it was a musical" thing legit? Even I knew it was a musical, like a year ago.

Yeah, I'm not sure what people are talking about. The first thing I heard about it was Harley was gonna be Lady Gaga and it was a musical.

If anything, I feel like the movie needed stronger musical segments. The musical scenes for the most part lacked "showmanship" and while Joaquin Phoenix wasn't a terrible singer, he wasn't strong enough to be the focus of a musical.

dawg i've seen a bunch of people walking out of the movie while it was running.

i rarely see this shit happening... lol