Some version of a Joker Cult is the means to pull off a sequel if the intent is to maintain some semblance of continuity and "canon" coherence.
I'm not sure a sub-Joker or copycat criminal emerging from the cult would fit neatly into the Batman story as most people know it, though. And it would negate the mystery associated with the original Joker's presumed origin(s) ... at least, to a degree.
On the other hand, I don't see any other way to do it.
Some version of a Joker Cult is the means to pull off a sequel if the intent is to maintain some semblance of continuity and "canon" coherence.
I'm not sure a sub-Joker or copycat criminal emerging from the cult would fit neatly into the Batman story as most people know it, though. And it would negate the mystery associated with the original Joker's presumed origin(s) ... at least, to a degree.
On the other hand, I don't see any other way to do it.
FAX
It's an easy way to weave together various good Joker portrayals, and eventually dovetail into someone taking over for Batflek even. Multiple versions of characters has been done in the comics. Might as well bring that to the screen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
It's an easy way to weave together various good Joker portrayals, and eventually dovetail into someone taking over for Batflek even. Multiple versions of characters has been done in the comics. Might as well bring that to the screen.
I don't disagree, Mr. listopencil. Not really ...
However, it does seem like one of those "square peg/round hole" problems. And, undoubtedly, we've all had a few of those.
First of all, I don't think people would be overly concerned about (or desirous of) a multi-film story featuring Joker had Marvel Studios not become more wealthy than 180 countries in a brief, 10-year span. Fans and producers might not even think about it. I mean, what Marvel pulled off was (and remains) somewhat unique in cinematic history. That accomplishment created a new context and fosters a new conversation and high expectations.
One also has to keep in mind that, since the Joker character is so historic and so beloved and so significant (to so many fans), one has to tread lightly to avoid market alienation and the perception of artistic compromise. This film "might" serve as a foundational piece but I don't think it was intended as such and, therefore, isn't an ideal cornerstone.
Not to say that it couldn't be done.
I think we know that a film crusade akin to Marvel must be built on a solid substructure from the outset. The first movie has to resonate and the subsequent films have to both elaborate and enhance. You can have an occasional "dud", but you can't let go of the thread entirely ... else you lose the entire tapestry ... and the box-office.
Ergo, the problem.
Ledger's Joker is gone forever because Ledger is gone forever. Phoenix's Joker is essentially incompatible with an "Origin of Batman" storyline because the timelines don't sync and Joker would be 70 years old before his first Batman encounter. That won't fly.
The only way to do this is to proceed with your suggestion. Yet, that leads to the potential of multiple Jokers emerging from some sort of Joker Cult or Joker Crime Family or Joker Fan Club which invalidates (probably) 90% of the fans' various preconceptions of Joker's history, background, and motivation.
It's possible ... but I'm not sure the odds of success are all that great. I'd like to see them try, though.
Originally Posted by FAX:
I don't disagree, Mr. listopencil. Not really ...
However, it does seem like one of those "square peg/round hole" problems. And, undoubtedly, we've all had a few of those.
First of all, I don't think people would be overly concerned about (or desirous of) a multi-film story featuring Joker had Marvel Studios not become more wealthy than 180 countries in a brief, 10-year span. Fans and producers might not even think about it. I mean, what Marvel pulled off was (and remains) somewhat unique in cinematic history. That accomplishment created a new context and fosters a new conversation and high expectations.
One also has to keep in mind that, since the Joker character is so historic and so beloved and so significant (to so many fans), one has to tread lightly to avoid market alienation and the perception of artistic compromise. This film "might" serve as a foundational piece but I don't think it was intended as such and, therefore, isn't an ideal cornerstone.
Not to say that it couldn't be done.
I think we know that a film crusade akin to Marvel must be built on a solid substructure from the outset. The first movie has to resonate and the subsequent films have to both elaborate and enhance. You can have an occasional "dud", but you can't let go of the thread entirely ... else you lose the entire tapestry ... and the box-office.
Ergo, the problem.
Ledger's Joker is gone forever because Ledger is gone forever. Phoenix's Joker is essentially incompatible with an "Origin of Batman" storyline because the timelines don't sync and Joker would be 70 years old before his first Batman encounter. That won't fly.
The only way to do this is to proceed with your suggestion. Yet, that leads to the potential of multiple Jokers emerging from some sort of Joker Cult or Joker Crime Family or Joker Fan Club which invalidates (probably) 90% of the fans' various preconceptions of Joker's history, background, and motivation.
It's possible ... but I'm not sure the odds of success are all that great. I'd like to see them try, though.
FAX
Sure. I'm just daydreaming about ways that they could keep moving forward with the various character's franchises and possibly weave them all together. Each one brings its own set of problems. You have Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and she's great in the role - probably the best situation out of all of them and they're going to need to keep pumping out decent movies with her or they'll lose steam. Aquaman is surprisingly (to me) adequate and maybe they can sell him as Underwater Thor. The rest are, pretty much, crap on the big screen so far. They need a new Batman, or someone to start off as Robin and turn into Batman as Batfleck is dealt some sort of terminal blow onscreen - that might make a decent soft reboot if Cult Joker kills him and Robin becomes New Batman. Superman is a boring character and I don't know if they even have anyone to play him. Cyborg/Flash? Blah.
If they are going push this Justice League idea then they have a lot of work to do, and it doesn't look good so far. As of right now I'd only be interested in these movies: Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. The Death of Batfleck. Aquaman is Underwater Thor. I think it's more likely that Pheonix Joker is either just a one off or will exist entirely in its own universe, unfortunately. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DeepPurple:
I saw Joker today, I laughed a lot more than I thought I would at certain parts. With all the people in clown face mimicking his rebellious attitude I got the impression of V for Vendetta.
I thought a better ending to tie into Batman would of been, when he was getting up on the hood of the police car and the crowd of people in clown face began to cheer, the next scene was the words "20 Years Later".
Then the next scene is the bank robbery opening of Dark Knight (End of Movie).
The story beginnings could of tied in more to Dark Knight. Let's say he had to apply for a job as a clown rather than being already employed, and he had a beard. They told him, to lose the beard. When he shaved, he had the scars on the side of his mouth that Heath Ledger had, and that's why he used the big red makeup to cover the scars. They did say his mother's boyfriend abused him as a child. I'm always thinking of ways to improve scripts or dialogue when I watch a movie.
The way it plays out, when we see stuff like his date with the neighbor lady and it turns out that it's all in his head, at the end when the therapist goes "what's so funny?"
Is it that the whole thing was in his head? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
So I didnt enjoy the movie. Its not a movie that is enjoyable. Its fascinating? Maybe thats a better word but its a very sad dark film thats main purpose is to spread awareness of self pity and mental illness...and kind of championing it?
"What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? You get what you fuckin' deserve!" [Reply]
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
The way it plays out, when we see stuff like his date with the neighbor lady and it turns out that it's all in his head, at the end when the therapist goes "what's so funny?"
Is it that the whole thing was in his head?
I was thinking when posters were saying it wouldn't work, the time is not right, the character is not right, then I posted it's not real, it's only a movie and anything can be made to work in a movie. Then I started thinking of the TV show Dallas and who shot JR. The dream sequence. I had the exact same thought, this whole thing is just a dream. Then I thought, you know people hated Dallas for doing that and there has been others. Maybe it would work and maybe not. [Reply]
This sucked. It desperately wanted to be a gritty 70s flick, but it didn't have the balls to do it right. The subways of this urban hellhole are menaced by gangs of low level white collar business men. The horror! Get your gun Bernie Getz, cause Biff Thorndyke and his BBA boyz are talkin' all kinds of shit about the Princeton rowing team.
spoilers
So the Joker may be (but probably isn't) Batman's brother? One of the reasons that comic book writing is so terrible is that the authors have an obsession with small universe syndrome. Not really surprising to see it make the transition to the big screen. They at least managed to not make the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents, but they still managed to end up with them getting killed by one of his acolytes.
The love interest was pointless and unbelievable.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as a person with mental illness - good.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as the Joker - terrible. Why so fem?
The Joker doesn't need an origin story.
Batman's parents should be killed by a random criminal. Not by Joe Chill and certainly not by the joker. Batman wages a war against crime, not a particular criminal.
Why is the Joker so rarely funny? I think the character works best when he is darkly humorous. The essence of the Joker, imo, should be: you know you shouldn't laugh but you can't help yourself.
I did like the scene where the midget couldn't reach the lock after witnessing a killing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mennonite:
This sucked. It desperately wanted to be a gritty 70s flick, but it didn't have the balls to do it right. The subways of this urban hellhole are menaced by gangs of low level white collar business men. The horror! Get your gun Bernie Getz, cause Biff Thorndyke and his BBA boyz are talkin' all kinds of shit about the Princeton rowing team.
spoilers
So the Joker may be (but probably isn't) Batman's brother? One of the reasons that comic book writing is so terrible is that the authors have an obsession with small universe syndrome. Not really surprising to see it make the transition to the big screen. They at least managed to not make the Joker the killer of Bruce Wayne's parents, but they still managed to end up with them getting killed by one of his acolytes.
The love interest was pointless and unbelievable.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as a person with mental illness - good.
Joaquin Phoenix's acting as the Joker - terrible. Why so fem?
The Joker doesn't need an origin story.
Batman's parents should be killed by a random criminal. Not by Joe Chill and certainly not by the joker. Batman wages a war against crime, not a particular criminal.
Why is the Joker so rarely funny? I think the character works best when he is darkly humorous. The essence of the Joker, imo, should be: you know you shouldn't laugh but you can't help yourself.
I did like the scene where the midget couldn't reach the lock after witnessing a killing.
As kind of an aside to that I had an issue with this portrayal because the Joker isn’t just maniacal but, also a brilliant criminal. This Joker is just a deranged fool. It is a tremendous performance but, it just doesn’t quite fit as the actual Joker. IMO of course. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
The way I took it: he's definitely not Bruce's brother. His mom was nearly as delusional as he was.
I agree, but even dangling the possibility is kinda annoying.
Again, I don't think the Joker needs an origin story, especially a lame one where he's a bad stand-up comic with a medical condition that makes him laugh for God's sake.
If you insist on making one and you want to go with a gritty 70s thing you have to go all out. You have to show the urban rot and degradation that we saw in Death Wish and Taxi Driver. You need racial conflicts too, but there is no way that would fly today. Don't stop with the Joker as Travis Bickle - go all the way into Joe Spinell in Maniac (1980) territory with a dash of the Scorpio killer from Dirty Harry.
Oh, and make me laugh and then feel guilty about it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
The way I took it: he's definitely not Bruce's brother. His mom was nearly as delusional as he was.
That's not always how those things work. But I can see how it doesn't fit the narrative in a fictional story line. I'm more concerned with the PC Crowd messing this film over and not giving it Film of the year, and instead giving the award out to the film that was already given the award for best film by foreigners [Reply]
