Current Events > Verify if this Joker 2 spoiler, because.. this can't be real.. *SPOILERS*

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know what 'actual Joker' means. Doesn't this movie take place in an isolated universe where the character in the first film just happened to be anointed the title of 'Joker' and thus the persona grew from there?

i'm starting to think that scene was a metaphor for this movie.

cause i felt sodomized after watching it...

Uh

Um

Spluh?

Well I just read it on tvtropes so presumably yes

That must be an awkward watch in a crowded theater

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/171dc8e9.jpg

Dakimakura posted...

That must be an awkward watch in a crowded theater

Don't worry, from what I keep hearing the theaters for this movie are very empty.

Yes it is all true, and it is because hollywood, the media, etc are mad people loved the first movie too much and agreed with Arthur.

The movie drives home the themes from the first movie in an even more bleak and nihilistic way. It also seemed like a massive fuck you to anyone who somehow missed the point of the first movie.

Regardless of how well the movie ultimately comes across, I do kinda applaud Todd Phillips for this. He never even wanted to make a sequel, but ultimately Warner gave him a ton of money and creative control. I guess this is what happens.

bsp77 posted...

Regardless of how well the movie ultimately comes across, I do kinda applaud Todd Phillips for this. He never even wanted to make a sequel, but ultimately Warner gave him a ton of money and creative control. I guess this is what happens.

From what I gather, it's basically like Gremlins 2 in terms of "I never wanted to do a sequel", but more spiteful about it.

This way they can do a 3rd film without Joaquin Phoenix

bsp77 posted...

The movie drives home the themes from the first movie in an even more bleak and nihilistic way. It also seemed like a massive fuck you to anyone who somehow missed the point of the first movie.

Regardless of how well the movie ultimately comes across, I do kinda applaud Todd Phillips for this. He never even wanted to make a sequel, but ultimately Warner gave him a ton of money and creative control. I guess this is what happens.

I think the point of the first one was money and the second one drove home that theme in an even more bleak and nihilistic way.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

Yes it is all true, and it is because hollywood, the media, etc are mad people loved the first movie too much and agreed with Arthur.

My God, you're right! They spent $200m just to piss off some incels!

What will those crazy Hollywood liberals get up to next?

Is that act also done as a musical?

I mean Arthur's death makes sense given the age discrepancy between him and Bruce

HighSeraph posted...

I mean Arthur's death makes sense given the age discrepancy between him and Bruce

I have a hard time seeing Arthur as "THE" Joker anyway so this is just an Elseworlds tale as far as I'm concerned.

Hayame_Zero posted...

From what I gather, it's basically like Gremlins 2 in terms of "I never wanted to do a sequel", but more spiteful about it.

Yeah, but Gremlins 2 is a masterpiece.

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

Yes it is all true, and it is because hollywood, the media, etc are mad people loved the first movie too much and agreed with Arthur.

I've seen the rumor that the movie is a spite project specifically aimed at the people who felt bad for Arthur in the first one a few times now. Is there some interview or quote that people are leaning on to come to that conclusion?

Also, fuck man, that is so hilariously bad. I almost wished I had watched the first so I could see how bad this ended up being. lol

This isnt a new thing. Its always a theory in realistic Batman stories that the joker is a persona passed on from person to person to explain why he keeps surviving impossible situations and not really getting older over time and such.

in the less realistic stories its straight magic and impossible tech used to justify his continued existence.

I don't get why people are so scandalized by this scene.

I know this is kinda/sorta-but not really-based on Batman shit, but this is still a bleak drama movie for adults.

This Ronald McDonald cosplayer was never Joker. Good.

Dakimakura posted...

I think the point of the first one was money and the second one drove home that theme in an even more bleak and nihilistic way.

The first one is like The Dark Night when joker gets that mountain of money. The second one is when he reveals he just wanted to burn the money.

It's kind of an interesting idea, actually. Almost like the Joker is a demon who can posses different hosts.

Didn't he say he was an "idea" in the first one? I actually think it sounds like an awesome ending, and allows the audience to have more sympathy for Phoenix's character. Explains why the makeup wasn't the "joker" makeup, also.

saw the scene on youtube. along with the lady gaga sex scene this movie was definitely made on spite but not towards the white male incel community it was made out of spite of anyone who didn't get the writer's vision there's an interview where he goes over the movie and he sounds like a pompous fart huffing egotist

Maybe the real Joker was us all along

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2f3fd1d4.jpg

That sounds so horrible. Given that there was no way they were ever actually going to pit this Joker against a Batman, it sounds stupidly unnecessary. If they wanted to do something like the Joker is an ideal that could have probably worked in a non-shitty sequel.

Nemu posted...

the Joker is an ideal

What? Not the point at all.

Hopefully the Battinson Joker will be handled better

Hayame_Zero posted...

From what I gather, it's basically like Gremlins 2 in terms of "I never wanted to do a sequel", but more spiteful about it.

Except Gremlins 2 (and Joe Dante) are fucking awesome.

it's a social commentary on the staggering, completely off the mark reception to the first movie

Not saying that people can't have issues with the movie, but so many don't get the point.

The first movie is very much about how horribly society treats those with mental illness and about how society actually causes these types of figures to emerge through their lack of empathy.

The second movie builds on this where society is now fascinated with this figure and treats him as some kind of fucked up hero. Which sounds very similar to how incels took the first movie. But no one actually cares about Arthur as a person and they only care about the Joker. And when he decides to shut off the Joker persona, he is mistreated, scorned and murdered. So even more bleak and nihilistic about how society treats mental illness.

I think the point of both movies is that there is no "Actual Joker"

It's just that society, cruelty and hypocrisy creates "Jokers"

By othering and not caring about people we take them to dark places where one way or another they break down.

Reading about it actually makes it more interesting. I've always thought it was silly how big of a villain Joker is despite no real powers or special talents like Batman. His whole deal is he's crazy. Him getting bullied by randoms is a lot more realistic.

It being a musical turned me off ever since I heard about it. All this other stuff is just...wow. It's not like I was even in love with the first movie, it was fine for what it was, but I do dislike when directors do spiteful or trollish crap just to mess with the audience like a certain director did to another popular series/franchise/whatever.

I have a concept of a Joker

Southernfatman posted...

It being a musical turned me off ever since I heard about it. All this other stuff is just...wow. It's not like I was even in love with the first movie, it was fine for what it was, but I do dislike when directors do spiteful or trollish crap just to mess with the audience like a certain director did to another popular series/franchise/whatever.

What's funny is hearing it was a musical was the first thing that even got me on board with a sequel way back when it was first announced. I figured that if they were going to make a sequel to a movie that really shouldn't have one, doing something wildly creative like a musical was a smart move. A good example of this at play is the South Park movie.

The problem is that it wasn't really a musical. It needed to be Chicago, with all new original tracks, but instead it just was an edgy Kidz Bop.

Im starting to feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else. No way its implied at ALL that he was raped by the guards, just beaten severely. And the fact that so many people online almost universally agree he was raped is just infuriating, complaining and being angry about something that doesnt happen. He was NOT raped!

That being said, Im not defending this movie because I also thought it was terrible. Its just ridiculous seeing all this outrage over people who probably didnt see the actual movie and are probably just going off a Wikipedia summary and bandwagoning off someone elses false information.

DavidZ2844 posted...

Im starting to feel like I saw a different movie than everyone else. No way its implied at ALL that he was raped by the guards, just beaten severely. And the fact that so many people online almost universally agree he was raped is just infuriating, complaining and being angry about something that doesnt happen. He was NOT raped!

Is this a cope?
They immediately drag him to the bathroom with the lead cop ordering the other two to take his pants off as he starts undoing his own and the next we see him he's being dragged back to his cell without his pants and a blank stare into nothingness, they definitely did

s0nicfan posted...

I've seen the rumor that the movie is a spite project specifically aimed at the people who felt bad for Arthur in the first one a few times now. Is there some interview or quote that people are leaning on to come to that conclusion?

I think he implied it instead of flat out saying it like Alan Moore did in regards to Rorshach in Watchmen. This is NOT a person to idolize and they definitely aren't a role model and a hero.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Wonder why studios think it's ok to make weirdo movies that make fun of fans or actively piss them off. WB went through this movie and the matrix 4 already.

loafy013 posted...

I think he implied it instead of flat out saying it like Alan Moore did in regards to Rorshach in Watchmen. This is NOT a person to idolize and they definitely aren't a role model and a hero.

Having sympathy for a character is not the same as idolizing it

Wonder how WB approved this. Todd actively destroyed one of their biggest properties, regardless of the message he was trying to convey.

Wonder how WB approved this. Todd actively destroyed one of their biggest properties, regardless of the message he was trying to convey.

I don't think Todd's getting hired by WB anytime soon...

Wonder why studios think it's ok to make weirdo movies that make fun of fans or actively piss them off. WB went through this movie and the matrix 4 already.

" We don't need the fans the casual masses are the only ones we ever really need anyway."
"But sir they don't like this either!"
"Wait what? @#$#$!"

wait so this is a prequel to Nolan Dark Knight?