Film Joker: Folie à Deux (Joker 2)

A musical. They made a fekin musical. Way to ruin the whole Joker thing. Saying that, Joker was a good move but not as special as portrayed. It wasnt a move which you watch and then after the end sit in awe and are amazed what have you just witnessed. I mean, given the reviews I expected that but didnt feel it after watching it.
 
Was it some money laundering exercise or what? They all seem to know it was shit.

Edit: Can't post a Reddit link for some reason.
 
so did this turn out to be as shit as we all thought it would be?
 
It should've been impossible to feck up a character as one note as the Joker.
 
Schmiznurf said:
The director has come out and said that Arthur in the movie isn't actually Joker, which is hilarious considering he did say it was Joker before this movie came out.
Click to expand...

Arthur also asks to be called Joker in the first movie

Its a retcon
 
Maluco said:
This would have been the way to go, and what people would have wanted to see. It was the only “sequel” that made any sense.
Click to expand...
The problem is it didn't really make sense, because Arthur is a simpleton. There is no credible path for this moron to be a feared criminal.

Good reason to never make a sequel.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
I am and I’ll tell you why - as per my first post I think this is a GREAT movie about idols and the dangers of (a) creating false idols and (b) projecting your own needs onto another person.

Arthur Fleck is a weak character, not in the cinematic sense but in reality. He is physically weak, low IQ, beaten down by the abuses he suffered. In fact it was one of the criticisms of Joker, that ‘Arthur Fleck is THE Joker?!?!?’. This movie essentially confirms that, and displays that ‘Joker’ on Murray Franklin was the ‘best’ that Arthur Fleck would ever be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Joker is always weak. Hes usually drawn skinny and scrawny. He's dangerous because of weapons and no regard for human lives other than Batman. He will often use guns. Guns require no physical strength.

Jericholyte2 said:
But what I think Folie à Deux does brilliantly was show how other people create a monster out of Joker, far beyond what the person, Arthur Fleck, is or was ever capable.

This is a great cautionary tail, for both the creator or a ‘character’ and the followers. Take
the prisoner who eventually is killed by the guard. He is a loyal, unquestioning follower of JOKER, not Arthur Fleck. He sees the extravagance of the singing etc and is by his side even when he can’t follow where Arthur goes. Then, ultimate, he pays for that cultish following with his life
.

Likewise it’s a great cautionary tale against populism / cult of personality / idolising characters because the pressure is then on the ‘idol’ to always be escalating your rhetoric or flamboyancy etc. we see this in both Harley &
the prisoner that ends up killing him. Harley created a picture in her head of what Joker was, again not what Arthur Fleck actually is. She builds him up and builds him up and then Arthur had a choice to make, between fantasy and reality. When he chose reality she binned him off. Likewise the prisoner sees what Arthur did with Joker, but is willing to go further than Arthur is/ was, and so you see him cutting the smile in his face after stabbing Arthur as (I assume) in this universe (although I don’t expect another film) he will become the new ‘real’ Joker
.

And so I think a lot of the reaction to the film, they maybe expected, because this is what the film is about! People project ideas & judgments about what they think something should be, and then reject it when it turns out to be different.
Click to expand...

How exactly is cuttng your face going "a step further" than murdering someone on live tv and all in all killing 6 people? He kills 1 as far as we know.

Harley was supporting him while his defence was that Joker and him are 2 different people. At no point does she make an ultimatum or anything. So he doesnt need to go into court as "The Joker" and neither does he need to say there is no Joker and nor does it matter. He's the same person who killed 6 people.

Ive seen people in reviews say that Arthur isnt dangerous. He killed 6 people, hes a serial killer. I've seen reviews saying that he rejected the joker goons plan at the end because he's still a good guy. He's not a good guy and hasnt been since the train shootings. He does however say he regrets killing those people, so if he is to be believed he is showing signs of reform. But a lot of criminals and murderers are going to show remorse in court to try and get a lesser sentence. He probably does mean it but it doesnt change a lot. Think of any real case where someone has multiple victims, be it murder, rape etc. If they say they're sorry after do you suddenly feel bad for them and think they are a good person?

And yes movie goers want their time to be worthwhile so they are hoping to see a character start from a certain point and then be rewarded for getting through tough times. They dont want to watch a sad dancy singy Joker that doesnt do anything interesting and tries to elicit sympathy for a murderer who killed 6 people. Thats why people are calling it boring.

Youve already made him a serial killer, now its time to make him similar to the captivating one in the title. You cant just retcon it and pretend he didnt call himself Joker.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The problem is it didn't really make sense, because Arthur is a simpleton. There is no credible path for this moron to be a feared criminal.

Good reason to never make a sequel.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it takes someone smart to be a criminal? Prisons are full of people who got caught.
 
Ekeke said:
Why do you think it takes someone smart to be a criminal? Prisons are full of people who got caught.
Click to expand...
Joker is mostly written throughout his history as being incredibly intelligent. Genius level intellect in fact.
 
Ekeke said:
Why do you think it takes someone smart to be a criminal? Prisons are full of people who got caught.
Click to expand...
He's supposed to be more than just 'a' criminal, though. He's a comic book supervillain.

The first movie wants him to be very sympathetic by giving him a lot of weaknesses, but it goes so far that he's barely a functioning adult.

Fine for the movie they made, but would make it harder to continue.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
He's supposed to be more than just 'a' criminal, though. He's a comic book supervillain.
The first movie wants him to be very sympathetic by giving him a lot of weaknesses, but it goes so far that he's barely a functioning adult.

Fine for the movie they made, but would make it harder to continue.
Click to expand...

I agree that the first movie does a lot to make him sympathetic, which for me is a bit of an issue given there were plenty of people after watching it thinking he wasnt a clear cut murderer and criminal or agreeing with him.

However its been done before that he has a sympathetic backstory. The animated movies had him be essentially Arthur minus the abusive mother part. He's an unfunny comedian who turns to crime to pay the bills. In his first job he's asked to put on a red hood and act the part of a villain called Red Hood. He accidently gets knocked into the chemical vat and that is what turns him into the Joker as we know him.

Because of the bad choice to make Bruce a kid in the first movie, hes not going to have that traumatic experience. So they needed to give him something else to create a transformation. They did give him some more trauma instead of the vat, but he never transforms.

Anyway the point is he is supposed to be weak and pathetic before he's knocked in the vat. Afterwards he's just crazy... Insane... But not in the legal way. In the legal way an insanity defense would be when someone cant plan things out and think clearly. Joker is the opposite and is extremely well planned.
 
Ekeke said:
Joker is always weak. Hes usually drawn skinny and scrawny. He's dangerous because of weapons and no regard for human lives other than Batman. He will often use guns. Guns require no physical strength.



How exactly is cuttng your face going "a step further" than murdering someone on live tv and all in all killing 6 people? He kills 1 as far as we know.

Harley was supporting him while his defence was that Joker and him are 2 different people. At no point does she make an ultimatum or anything. So he doesnt need to go into court as "The Joker" and neither does he need to say there is no Joker and nor does it matter. He's the same person who killed 6 people.

Ive seen people in reviews say that Arthur isnt dangerous. He killed 6 people, hes a serial killer. I've seen reviews saying that he rejected the joker goons plan at the end because he's still a good guy. He's not a good guy and hasnt been since the train shootings. He does however say he regrets killing those people, so if he is to be believed he is showing signs of reform. But a lot of criminals and murderers are going to show remorse in court to try and get a lesser sentence. He probably does mean it but it doesnt change a lot. Think of any real case where someone has multiple victims, be it murder, rape etc. If they say they're sorry after do you suddenly feel bad for them and think they are a good person?

And yes movie goers want their time to be worthwhile so they are hoping to see a character start from a certain point and then be rewarded for getting through tough times. They dont want to watch a sad dancy singy Joker that doesnt do anything interesting and tries to elicit sympathy for a murderer who killed 6 people. Thats why people are calling it boring.

Youve already made him a serial killer, now its time to make him similar to the captivating one in the title. You cant just retcon it and pretend he didnt call himself Joker.
Click to expand...

I never said Arthur was a good guy (but personally I don’t really see people as good/bad). He is a man who (I believe this is the timeline of the first film) committed six horrific acts of violence. He is a damaged & unwell character.

But what he did was for him and him alone. He spouted his rant on the show, but those six murders were the extent of his ‘ambition’, as he, like most weak people, doesn’t have the scope of the character of ‘Joker’.

What happens (as I see it) is he fantasises ‘Joker’ could be in wider society, it the reality is that much more unhinged people would latch on to that Joker persona, project their ambitions on to him, and then be angered when he chickens out of embracing the Joker persona.

The inmate at the end is a sign of escalation as he’s willing to physically disfigure himself for the ‘character’.
 
Last edited:
Jericholyte2 said:
I never said Arthur was a good guy (but personally I don’t really see people as good/bad). He is a bad who (I believe this is the timeline of the first film) committed six horrific acts of violence. He is a damaged & unwell character.

But what he did was for him and him alone. He spouted his rant on the show, but those six murders were the extent of his ‘ambition’, as he, like most weak people, doesn’t have the scope of the character of ‘Joker’.

What happens (as I see it) is he fantasises ‘Joker’ could be in wider society, it the reality is that much more unhinged people would latch on to that Joker persona, project their ambitions on to him, and then be angered when he chickens out of embracing the Joker persona.

The inmate at the end is a sign of escalation as he’s willing to physically disfigure himself for the ‘character’.
Click to expand...
What?
 
Redlambs said:
What?
Click to expand...
A mistake with auto-correct- I meant to type ‘man’.

People in real life aren’t inherently good or bad. They’re the sum of what’s happened to them and how they react to it.

A criminal for example is often poorly educated (in the UK the prison population has an average reading age of 7) and so would fail to hold down a standard job, so turns to crime as a means of making money.

A drug addict often has a genetic predisposition to addiction and, for whatever reason, it’s been triggered by a certain drug; be it alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs.

People who commit sexual crimes often have severe unresolved trauma involving a close relative of the opposite sex.

So for each case there will have been opportunities to stop them from going down the rabbit-holes that they go down, whether it’s supportive education, better rehabilitative facilities, psychiatric intervention.

People aren’t stereotypes, they aren’t two-dimensional, people have things happen to them and react to them.

I’m not absolving anyone of responsibility, but these are simple truths about the human condition.
 
Pretty boring and I could say badly put tougher, the score is brilliant like the first one it elevates the many poor scenes to a higher level. That said Gaga and Phoenix are pretty good but dear me this is a tedious watch. The character arc in the first one built up to something this just shows us the same shit again but the line between crazy and reality is made to a much higher standard in the first one. The first one was ok and this one was ok-ish I guess but a snoozefest really. Joker the musical
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
He's supposed to be more than just 'a' criminal, though. He's a comic book supervillain.

The first movie wants him to be very sympathetic by giving him a lot of weaknesses, but it goes so far that he's barely a functioning adult.

Fine for the movie they made, but would make it harder to continue.
Click to expand...
And what does that mean exactly? Bad guy who shows up a lot? In one medium he's been said to have been jailed 79 times. In another it's 218. The guy is always caught and put in deux ex machina jail.
 
I watched this last night, knowing the reviews. I went into this with a somewhat open mind, hoping it wasn't as bad as the reviews suggest. It was. It's dreadful.

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of musicals, which it is. There is virtually no story whatsoever and the 'Joker' barely has any screen time.

I'm fully aware of what the message of the film was intended to be, but the first film was a huge success and cinema audiences just wanted a half decent sequel, despite it not being needed. Any director in Hollywood could have put a better sequel together than this garbage. The film deserves the hate it's receiving.
 
Snow said:
And what does that mean exactly? Bad guy who shows up a lot? In one medium he's been said to have been jailed 79 times. In another it's 218. The guy is always caught and put in deux ex machina jail.
Click to expand...
It means that he has to have some actual skill or ability that distinguishes him from a mere criminal.

The issue is just characterization, in the first movie they want Arthur to be sympathetic so they give him all these child-like, arrested-development qualities, which don't entirely work with some of his other traits, it's a bit of a mess that Phoenix carries with his performance.

Ekeke said:
However its been done before that he has a sympathetic backstory. The animated movies had him be essentially Arthur minus the abusive mother part. He's an unfunny comedian who turns to crime to pay the bills. In his first job he's asked to put on a red hood and act the part of a villain called Red Hood. He accidently gets knocked into the chemical vat and that is what turns him into the Joker as we know him.
Click to expand...
I don't know the animated movies super well. But that seems to be adapted from The Killing Joke. In that comic, his origin involves a bunch of tragic events that, within a day, break a normal man's sanity. This is a parallel to the present day, when the Joker is trying to break Gordon's sanity by doing terrible things to him within the course of a day.

However, that story never actually explains how you go from 'being insane' to 'being 'the Joker' as we generally understand it. You are asked to make the leap yourself. The origin story is also not 100% real according to the narrative.

I know in the old animated show, the Joker was a mobster and criminal in his previous life.
 
Last edited:
Iker Quesadillas said:
It means that he has to have some actual skill or ability that distinguishes him from a mere criminal.

The issue is just characterization, in the first movie they want Arthur to be sympathetic so they give him all these child-like, arrested-development qualities, which don't entirely work with some of his other traits, it's a bit of a mess that Phoenix carries with his performance.
Click to expand...
Sure but if you have seen the film then you'd know not to make these parallels between Arthur and comic book joker and thus shouldn't apply those supervillain characteristics to him.
 
This is not a musical, a musical I probably could have enjoyed. This is an incoherent mess.
 
Haven't seen it. But with all of the negative feedback I've been hearing, I don't think I'll bother.

At least until I can torrent a Blu Ray rip of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.