Jump to content

Joaquin Phoenix as Joker

Jograves

By Jograves
in Movies and TV

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted

So my small complaint is that in this version by the time Batman is saving Gotham, the Joker will be spending his social security checks on Luby's. He's only becoming the Joker at what, 45?  And Bruce Wayne is still a child?   The age difference between the two is a little large. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22469

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Tom said:

So my small complaint is that in this version by the time Batman is saving Gotham, the Joker will be spending his social security checks on Luby's. He's only becoming the Joker at what, 45?  And Bruce Wayne is still a child?   The age difference between the two is a little large. 

how much older was joker than michael keaton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 18014

Posted
Posted
So my small complaint is that in this version by the time Batman is saving Gotham, the Joker will be spending his social security checks on Luby's. He's only becoming the Joker at what, 45?  And Bruce Wayne is still a child?   The age difference between the two is a little large. 


In the movie, Joker mentions his mom was in the asylum 30 years ago. He was too young to remember her being away so in the movieverse he was probably around 33. Hey, it was the 70s. Everybody looked older than they were. It was hard times to be alive.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5635

Posted
Posted

 

In the movie, Joker mentions his mom was in the asylum 30 years ago. He was too young to remember her being away so in the movieverse he was probably around 33. Hey, it was the 70s. Everybody looked older than they were. It was hard times to be alive.

 

Dude smoked like 2 packs a day, was malnourished, constantly stressed, probably didnt sleep regularly. Makes sense. He’s been Brimley’d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22469

Posted
Posted

as said before, the fact that he’s kind of a simple guy is a detriment to the character.  you can be a brilliant, mad genius and still be fucked in the head enough to cripple your life before you become a kingpin.  I enjoyed the movie but heath ledger’s joker seemed like that mad genius.  phoenix’s joker was not the smartest guy in the room and it kept the character from being even better.  imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5635

Posted
Posted
as said before, the fact that he’s kind of a simple guy is a detriment to the character.  you can be a brilliant, mad genius and still be fucked in the head enough to cripple your life before you become a kingpin.  I enjoyed the movie but heath ledger’s joker seemed like that mad genius.  phoenix’s joker was not the smartest guy in the room and it kept the character from being even better.  imo. 


I think you’re missing the point. You have an expectation of what the Joker is. Your expectation is not valid criticism. This character is not supposed to be cool or smart, but feared and pitied.

At the end of the day, it’s like saying the detriment to Troy Aikman’s game was his inability to scramble. That’s just not the type of QB he was, nor would it have helped the Cowboys win more games-probably to the contrary. You can appreciate both Aikman and Steve Young, if you know your 90’s football gods. No need to have an expectation of what a QB should be ruin your respect for great play.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
futureman

futureman 22469

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

 think you’re missing the point. You have an expectation of what the Joker is. Your expectation is not valid criticism. This character is not supposed to be cool or smart, but feared and pitied.

At the end of the day, it’s like saying the detriment to Troy Aikman’s game was his inability to scramble. That’s just not the type of QB he was, nor would it have helped the Cowboys win more games-probably to the contrary. You can appreciate both Aikman and Steve Young, if you know your 90’s football gods. No need to have an expectation of what a QB should be ruin your respect for great play.

 

it’s just my opinion, man.  heath ledger’s joker was better, and creepier, because he was so smart.  we didn’t pity him at all.  to an extent we pitied phoenix’s joker.  I think it’s a detriment.  my opinion.  everything you said about running quarterbacks is asinine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigOrange1

BigOrange1 6441

Posted
Posted

finally saw this last night.  thought it was incredible.  i had been told that it was very dark and intense and it definitely lived up to that description.  thought ledger's joker would never be topped, but fuck if phoenix might not have done so.  

the film was definitely a very strong commentary on mental illness and the difference between the haves and have nots in this country.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14921

Posted
Posted


I think you’re missing the point. You have an expectation of what the Joker is. Your expectation is not valid criticism. This character is not supposed to be cool or smart, but feared and pitied.

At the end of the day, it’s like saying the detriment to Troy Aikman’s game was his inability to scramble. That’s just not the type of QB he was, nor would it have helped the Cowboys win more games-probably to the contrary. You can appreciate both Aikman and Steve Young, if you know your 90’s football gods. No need to have an expectation of what a QB should be ruin your respect for great play.



People freaked out when Rian Johnson took Star Wars in a different direction. Some aren’t going to like this Joker for similar reasons.

I thought the movie was great but agree that it kinda lets the Joker off the hook by making him a mentally challenged victim. Ledger’s Joker was better because he was unhinged but diabolical and smart. “Who did you leave him with?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


People freaked out when Rian Johnson took Star Wars in a different direction. Some aren’t going to like this Joker for similar reasons.

I thought the movie was great but agree that it kinda lets the Joker off the hook by making him a mentally challenged victim. Ledger’s Joker was better because he was unhinged but diabolical and smart. “Who did you leave him with?”

 

Again, this is the beginning of the creation of the Joker.  Ledgers Joker is the comic book incarnation, evil, wicked, and well played, but this is a real life person driven to madness, and ultimately evil.  "Better" is very subjective here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15346

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/9/2019 at 12:52 AM, Eskimohorn said:

 


I think you’re missing the point. You have an expectation of what the Joker is. Your expectation is not valid criticism. This character is not supposed to be cool or smart, but feared and pitied.

At the end of the day, it’s like saying the detriment to Troy Aikman’s game was his inability to scramble. That’s just not the type of QB he was, nor would it have helped the Cowboys win more games-probably to the contrary. You can appreciate both Aikman and Steve Young, if you know your 90’s football gods. No need to have an expectation of what a QB should be ruin your respect for great play.
 

 

Aikman was no Mike White 

Edited by Trey3216
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trey3216

Trey3216 15346

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 


People freaked out when Rian Johnson took Star Wars in a different direction. Some aren’t going to like this Joker for similar reasons.

I thought the movie was great but agree that it kinda lets the Joker off the hook by making him a mentally challenged victim. Ledger’s Joker was better because he was unhinged but diabolical and smart. “Who did you leave him with?”

 

Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14921

Posted
Posted
Again, this is the beginning of the creation of the Joker.  Ledgers Joker is the comic book incarnation, evil, wicked, and well played, but this is a real life person driven to madness, and ultimately evil.  "Better" is very subjective here.


I hope we never find out. The movie was good, no need for a sequel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 43004

Posted
Posted (edited)

They aren't in the same ballpark as far as the takes on the character. Ledger is just an agent of chaos. He's diabolical. He's not insane. He may do crazy things but his actions are nothing more than watching the world burn and upsetting the natural order. That's a lot closer to what the comic book Joker is. He's Batman's foil.

Phoenix is a person going down the path to insanity and we see that before he ultimately has the mental snap to become the character people are used to the Joker being. At no point is he diabolical. The movement and frankly his "birth" as a character happens around him. He's not leading it directly. He stumbles into starting a movement. That's why I'll contend this really isn't a comic book movie. It's a great study into the descent of madness and it makes people uncomfortable because it could easily happen every day in our society. 

Edited by mdmost
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pimphand

Pimphand 5758

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

That was a bit for an Indy movie he was filming and all the people he interacted with had no clue why he behaved certain ways. 

Yes I know he went on Letterman 18 months later to talk about it.  I still think it is a funny retort to the aforementioned statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rougarou

Rougarou 594

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/10/2019 at 8:36 AM, Rougarou said:

War Dogs was trash, to whomever cited that as evidence that this comedy director has recent wins or chops.

From the trailer, my opinion this movie is going to be awesome. Heath Ledger's completely insane and random and chaotic evil Joker isn't real because it isn't human. In the same way there is no such thing as a human being able to inform true randomness there could never be a character like he portrayed that didn't have elements of what we saw in the trailer, namely experiences and influences (however subtle or sub/unconscious they may be) that shaped the psychosis of him as a person. Having a fully baked insane and unreliable adult narrator introduced via being air dropped into the middle of an action arc story is fun in the same way that any fantasy/sci-fi that uses potions and magic to do something supernatural is fun, because it breaks the glass of the limits of known human condition and phenomena, but it's not real. 

This movie looks like it's attempting something real which takes it's own (different from Ledgers joker, to be sure, but maybe equally difficult) awesome acting skills and abilities. I also think for those immediately decrying there are external things that happen to Joker to influence who he becomes as some sort of automatic justification for creating sympathy or framing Joker as a tragedy should remember the difference between reasons versus excuses where reasons are just facts that communicate and inform and excuses attempt to appeal to emotion and justify. Just because there are reasons that Arthur was a sad sack weirdo who snapped doesn't mean they have to elevate Joker into a tragic character worthy of sympathy (though our differences in what appeals to us mean our mileage may vary).

Lastly, I thought the evolution physically even in just the 2 minutes was encouraging. Going from a malnourished frail chainsmoker body into someone with a bit of snap in his dance step and some swag means maybe we are going to see that fun metamorphosis that happens when someone dying on the vine finds that vein and is pumped full of passion and energy and life.

 

On 8/29/2019 at 9:29 PM, Rougarou said:

This could be better than Heath’s, man. I’m not saying it will be but the trailers are extremely compelling. The church bells on Phoenix to even attempt this role after HL and to think his interpretation looks awesome in two minute bytes.

I think I nailed it!

I recently saw Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan (2010) and that movie felt more similar to The Joker more than anything else: 

1) an unreliable narrarator

2) POV of the descent into mental illness/insanity.

3) Crazy Mom and Single Mom/Child dynamic

4) Gritty/low-fi camera work of NYC including lots of subway shots

5) Good-to-great acting

 

Black Swan is more surreal obviously and Aronofsky is a much better director and I enjoyed rewatching Black Swan more than I think I would The Joker (of which I have no desire to see again).

Edited by Rougarou
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
mulletpelini

mulletpelini 5211

Posted
Posted

hmmm, well I watched it.  Not a Batman fan, not a Joker fan so just an unbiased watch.  I wondered for the first 45 minutes when would be the tipping point of just shutting it down.  So depressing, good grief.  I assume that was the intent after watching the remainder, but at the time, wow.  But then it picked up and I got more into it.  I didn't hate it, I'm just not quite sure how exactly I feel about it.  And maybe that in itself means it was a pretty damn good movie, because I'm still trying to figure that part out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3916

Posted
Posted (edited)

So, for those debating about the movie and its place within canon.  This isn't really a comic book story.  This is more a character story on insanity which used a lucrative and iconic comic figure as a backdrop to give it a known context.  Him being 30 years older than Batman doesn't really matter.  The origin not really being of canon, doesn't really matter.  It's a different story or version of a character which wasn't as worried about staying true to canon or other creations.  It pretty much used the character of the Joker as a vehicle to sell the tickets it needed for it's version of insanity.... Think about the movie The Machinist, but instead of not eating and becoming delusional, he puts on makeup.  That may be a more suitable comparison.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kevin-smith-revealed-joker-almost-152115574.html

Quote

In Smith’s telling there are two main differences between the ending he saw and what made it into the final film. The first is that instead of a nameless rioter it was Fleck himself who shot and killed the Waynes.

This is a deparature, to be sure, but it’s one that’s still pretty consistent with the path we know Bruce Wayne sets out upon. It’s actually how the Waynes die in Tim Burton’s Batman and if anything, it would make Batman’s antipathy for the Joker later even more palpable.

The much crazier difference is that originally Fleck also killed Bruce. Let that sink in for a moment. Instead of serving as the catalyst for Bruce Wayne’s transformation into Batman, one of the most famous characters of all time, director Todd Phillips originally just had the Joker murder him as a child before cutting to the credits.

“What the fuck, man? This world has no Batman,” Smith said his reaction was, channeling what everyone would have said if that ending had been kept. Warner Bros., likely wanting to keep its options open for future takes on the character, nixed that idea and we ended up with the still-bonkers ending to the film that played in theaters and the possibility that Batman meets Phoenix’s Joker in a future film.

This gives you an idea of how much Phillips cared about the Joker being aligned to a canonical version of the story.  He wanted Joker to kill Wayne as a kid.  Just burn it down and not worry about who the Joker was before his version.  Use what he could to sell the concept and then tell his own ideas.  Sort of brave, in a way.  Would have taken balls to go with that ending.

Edited by Patrick Bateman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
wild_turkey

wild_turkey 3159

Posted
Posted
On 12/31/2019 at 9:08 PM, Patrick Bateman said:

So, for those debating about the movie and its place within canon.  This isn't really a comic book story.  This is more a character story on insanity which used a lucrative and iconic comic figure as a backdrop to give it a known context. 

Just watched it last night for the first time and I agree with this.

I'm generally not a comic book or superhero movie person. I did enjoy the Nolan/Bale Batman trilogy, but I mostly avoid Marvel movies and I don't care much about authenticity to the original stories and characters. I think because of that, I went into it expecting nothing of the Batman universe. I knew from reviews it would be a story about mental illness and that's pretty much what I got. I guess if you went into it expecting a true Joker origin story that clearly fits the existing Batman narrative, it's easier to be frustrated.

I also think comparisons between HL and JP are kinda pointless. Ledger played the Joker character about as well as anyone can. Phoenix played a mentally ill person named Arthur Fleck who referred to himself as Joker. That's just my take.

I'm still not sure how I feel about it as a whole. JP was great but I think the rest of it was just okay and the story was a little underwhelming. The same exact story could be told without using the words Joker/Wayne/Gotham and I think JP would still get awards nominations but very few people would be talking about the movie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted

Batman is a great story with two great iconic characters, a hero and a villain. There have been many takes on both characters throughout history. Some great. Some terrible. Some average. There will be many more. And that is a good thing. I watched Joker last night and thought it was almost perfect. Phoenix is a tour de force. He absolutely should win the the Oscar. All the gripes I’ve read about mythbusting and canon don’t bother me at all. This is just one interpretation of a character. And it was very well done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 49197

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

I also think comparisons between HL and JP are kinda pointless. Ledger played the Joker character about as well as anyone can. Phoenix played a mentally ill person named Arthur Fleck who referred to himself as Joker. That's just my take.   I'm still not sure how I feel about it as a whole. JP was great but I think the rest of it was just okay and the story was a little underwhelming. The same exact story could be told without using the words Joker/Wayne/Gotham and I think JP would still get awards nominations but very few people would be talking about the movie.

Well done... Great explanation and I Agree!!  

giphy.gif

 

Edited by LTtxfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
closetojumping

closetojumping 62740

Posted
Posted
On 12/31/2019 at 9:08 PM, Patrick Bateman said:

So, for those debating about the movie and its place within canon.  This isn't really a comic book story.  This is more a character story on insanity which used a lucrative and iconic comic figure as a backdrop to give it a known context.  Him being 30 years older than Batman doesn't really matter.  The origin not really being of canon, doesn't really matter.  It's a different story or version of a character which wasn't as worried about staying true to canon or other creations.  It pretty much used the character of the Joker as a vehicle to sell the tickets it needed for it's version of insanity.... Think about the movie The Machinist, but instead of not eating and becoming delusional, he puts on makeup.  That may be a more suitable comparison.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kevin-smith-revealed-joker-almost-152115574.html

This gives you an idea of how much Phillips cared about the Joker being aligned to a canonical version of the story.  He wanted Joker to kill Wayne as a kid.  Just burn it down and not worry about who the Joker was before his version.  Use what he could to sell the concept and then tell his own ideas.  Sort of brave, in a way.  Would have taken balls to go with that ending.

I watched this movie a few nights ago and I think you have it straight. 

While I watched the Nolan trilogy and enjoyed it, as well as enjoying Burton’s earlier version, I don’t typically give a shit about comic books, their canon or the movies that go with many of them these days. So I went into this movie simply expecting something about the Joker. I didn’t read up on it and I’d seen headlines that it was excellent. What I watched was a well done movie about mental illness that hijacked an iconic character from our society for the craven purpose of selling fucking tickets. I thought it was a miserable piece of shit of a story for doing that. Great acting though. 

It’s the most nominated movie of 2019 for the Oscars. I’m sure it will win a bunch including best actor. That’s great and all, but this wasn’t about the Joker and this doesn’t even vaguely compare to Ledger’s work. It’s a shame that that comparison is forced upon us since they used the basic premise of the villain to make money. Bleh. I don’t need fucking arthouse stories on the archetype for chaos in our society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

I think this is a decent movie, certainly more enjoyable than most comic book movies, but it being the most nominated movie for the Oscars is kind of silly (then again it is the Oscars).  My main issue with this movie is that there is no depth to it.  It creates a really interesting world and sets up an interesting character but doesn't do much with these elements.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
C-Man

C-Man 27230

Posted
Posted
I watched this movie a few nights ago and I think you have it straight. 
While I watched the Nolan trilogy and enjoyed it, as well as enjoying Burton’s earlier version, I don’t typically give a shit about comic books, their canon or the movies that go with many of them these days. So I went into this movie simply expecting something about the Joker. I didn’t read up on it and I’d seen headlines that it was excellent. What I watched was a well done movie about mental illness that hijacked an iconic character from our society for the craven purpose of selling fucking tickets. I thought it was a miserable piece of shit of a story for doing that. Great acting though. 
It’s the most nominated movie of 2019 for the Oscars. I’m sure it will win a bunch including best actor. That’s great and all, but this wasn’t about the Joker and this doesn’t even vaguely compare to Ledger’s work. It’s a shame that that comparison is forced upon us since they used the basic premise of the villain to make money. Bleh. I don’t need fucking arthouse stories on the archetype for chaos in our society. 



I think this is a decent movie, certainly more enjoyable than most comic book movies, but it being the most nominated movie for the Oscars is kind of silly (then again it is the Oscars).  My main issue with this movie is that there is no depth to it.  It creates a really interesting world and sets up an interesting character but doesn't do much with these elements.  


Watched this tonight. Agree with a lot of these quoted comments. It was like Batman/Joker in a Requiem for a Dream world.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...