So the new Joker movie sucks

[Kamiyama]

https://youtu.be/0TVdTvWzr-A?si=F6GJ3y1yYZa1J_iX

It sounds like the director hated the character he made in Joker 1 and now in Joker 2 the protagonist Arthur Fleck gets beaten up, raped, and then murdered at the end of the movie. Then they have a different person cut a smile into their own face and supposedly takes his place as Heath Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight.

I think Joker 1 is one of the best batman universe movies ever made. I love how Arthur exposes how craven and evil the rich are, and how he goes on a rampage killing them to the applause of the impoverished and downtrodden masses. He is a villain to some, but I think he is an anti-hero.

I don't think the director liked that. I think the director (being a rich person himself) never thought that the character he created would come across as an anti-hero and that members of his audience would come to love that character. Joker 2 is a retcon, his attempt at revisionist history. The director reacted in disgust to how the audience adored the Joker and is trying to erase the character he created.

I reject the revisionist history. Joker 1 will always be a cherished entry in my movie catalog. However I will not see Joker 2 and I do not accept it as canon.

In my substituted batman universe, the Joker played by Joaquin Phoenix is the same Joker as played by Heath Ledger. Arthur Fleck isn't murdered and he becomes the archnemesis of the batman when he escapes from Arkham Asylum.

Joker -> Dark Knight

Joker 2 never happened. That is my version of events.

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

It's too bad, I liked the 1st movie

[MinionJoe]

Originally posted by Los Pollos Hermanos:

It's too bad, I liked the 1st movie

Same.

As OP said, Joker 2 was made to punish the people that liked Joker 1.

Though, Critical Drinker did enjoy the musical numbers (much to everyone's surprise).

[L1qu1dator]

Who the ♥♥♥♥ adored Joker from the first part...?

Originally posted by Kamiyama:

In my substituted batman universe, the Joker played by Joaquin Phoenix is the same Joker as played by Heath Ledger. Arthur Fleck isn't murdered and he becomes the archnemesis of the batman when he escapes from Arkham Asylum.

Bruh, they're 2 different people, by looking at their characters, how they behave.
Phoenix Joker is a different person than Ledger Joker.

[steven1mac]

The Joker 1 sent the wrong message according to Hollywood, so they had to destroy the character. They wanted to destroy the character to one up the fans, the show was designed to fail.

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

Originally posted by steven1mac:

The Joker 1 sent the wrong message according to Hollywood, so they had to destroy the character. They wanted to destroy the character to one up the fans, the show was designed to fail.

The first Joker movie was too dark for woke Hollywood because incels were identifying with it.

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCwSM4HhpKY

[Kamiyama]

Originally posted by L1qu1dator:

Who the ♥♥♥♥ adored Joker from the first part...? :lunar2019deadpanpig:

Originally posted by Kamiyama:

In my substituted batman universe, the Joker played by Joaquin Phoenix is the same Joker as played by Heath Ledger. Arthur Fleck isn't murdered and he becomes the archnemesis of the batman when he escapes from Arkham Asylum.

Bruh, they're 2 different people, by looking at their characters, how they behave.
Phoenix Joker is a different person than Ledger Joker.

Nope. They are the same person in my continuity.

[Fake]

They did Joker dirty.

[DarkCrystalMethod]

Not even Mark H. could probably save it. (I haven't watched it, now I can safely skip it)

[miakisfan]

Originally posted by Kamiyama:

https://youtu.be/0TVdTvWzr-A?si=F6GJ3y1yYZa1J_iX

It sounds like the director hated the character he made in Joker 1 and now in Joker 2 the protagonist Arthur Fleck gets beaten up, raped, and then murdered at the end of the movie. Then they have a different person cut a smile into their own face and supposedly takes his place as Heath Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight.

I think Joker 1 is one of the best batman universe movies ever made. I love how Arthur exposes how craven and evil the rich are, and how he goes on a rampage killing them to the applause of the impoverished and downtrodden masses. He is a villain to some, but I think he is an anti-hero.

I don't think the director liked that. I think the director (being a rich person himself) never thought that the character he created would come across as an anti-hero and that members of his audience would come to love that character. Joker 2 is a retcon, his attempt at revisionist history. The director reacted in disgust to how the audience adored the Joker and is trying to erase the character he created.

I reject the revisionist history. Joker 1 will always be a cherished entry in my movie catalog. However I will not see Joker 2 and I do not accept it as canon.

In my substituted batman universe, the Joker played by Joaquin Phoenix is the same Joker as played by Heath Ledger. Arthur Fleck isn't murdered and he becomes the archnemesis of the batman when he escapes from Arkham Asylum.

Joker -> Dark Knight

Joker 2 never happened. That is my version of events.

What a surprise. Good thing I didn't have any intention of seeing it. There is already more than enough Batman related movies out as it is.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Kamiyama:

It sounds like the director hated the character he made in Joker 1 and now in Joker 2 the protagonist Arthur Fleck gets beaten up, raped, and then murdered at the end of the movie. Then they have a different person cut a smile into their own face and supposedly takes his place as Heath Ledger's Joker in the Dark Knight.

I think Joker 1 is one of the best batman universe movies ever made.

The Joker is a good movie. It's not great, but it has an interesting take on a character that has been impossible to break away from Heath Ledger's take on it.

But, it's a one-trick pony. That's all it does. It's very predictable and has a firm "ending" that supports the rest of the DCU... sorta. But, there is just no place for it to go... It should have stayed a single.

However, you're mistaken about Phillips - He really liked the character and both he and Phoenix wanted to do a followup to experiment with it. (From what I have read/heard, Gaga's inclusion "inspired" producers to push for a "musical" take for Gaga-Fanservice or something. Dunno, haven't seen it.)

I haven't seen the movie, but negative reviews like this are common right now. Even so, I'll withhold judgement 'til I get a chance to see it for myself.

But, even if I think the sequel is good, "The Joker" was worth leaving as a standalone, IMO. A sequel reduces its already limited appeal.

... He is a villain to some, but I think he is an anti-hero...

Uh... no. Joker is a villain, no matter if you see some kind of redeeming value in him. Joker is much more like Burton/Nicholson's portrayal of him than others... It's worth nothing that though Ledger's performance is the accepted pinnacle, that Joker didn't necessarily, directly, kill innocents... His main activity was pushing out the mob so chaos and crime could meet and demonstrate the hypocrisy he saw in "Batman." Though, I still think Ledger's Joker is the most profound. RIP

Just IMO. Everyone's got one. :)

[Chaosolous]

Yes, obviously.

No one wanted a sequel to that movie.

Out of all those nobodies who wanted a sequel to that movie; nobody wanted it to be a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ musical.

Who the ♥♥♥♥ thought a musical was a good idea?

[L1qu1dator]

Originally posted by Chaosolous:

Who the ♥♥♥♥ thought a musical was a good idea?

Lady Gaga probably did.

[Kamiyama]

I agree Heath Ledger did an amazing job as the Joker in the Dark Knight but I think Joaquin Phoenix's performance in Joker 1 was just as good.

The Dark Knight was Ledger's magnum opus because he died shortly afterwards so people love to put that performance up on a pedestal, but I think Phoenix also nailed the character as well and also gave a 10/10 performance.

Also I disagree the Joker's primary motivation in both Joker 1 and the Dark Knight is class warfare. He is a total anti-hero. I understand some others may disagree because they may see themselves as members of the upper class, but I do see a redeeming value in him as a revolutionary.

[Chaosolous]

Originally posted by Kamiyama:

Also I disagree the Joker's primary motivation in both Joker 1 and the Dark Knight is class warfare. He is a total anti-hero. I understand some others may disagree because they may see themselves as members of the upper class, but I do see a redeeming value in him as a revolutionary.

My interpretation of Joker has always been that he's about mocking the irony of the seriousness to life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ9lx_Ne0Ko

It's not about the money or power. It's just about him understanding that our daily lives are the punchline to a very bad joke.