Joker (2019) film.

[phantom1592]

Not sure is that is possible though. The little kid is Bruce Wayne and in that chronology Arthur would be pretty old by then, assuming they stick to the realistic tone
of the movie and don't do something silly like saying Joker never ages or was stuck in suspended animation until Bruce grew up.

I would say the counterpoint is that Joker's age doesn't really matter. He's not really a physical threat going toe to toe with a master martial artist... his mind, his chaos, that's the threat with Joker. Jack Nicolson was 52 when he was Joker... and it worked JUUUUST fine.

[williamtheday]

I would say the counterpoint is that Joker's age doesn't really matter. He's not really a physical threat going toe to toe with a master martial artist... his mind, his chaos, that's the threat with Joker. Jack Nicolson was 52 when he was Joker... and it worked JUUUUST fine.

Eh, Nicholson was more a bargain basement Grandpa Munster

[JBatmanFan05]

I'd be excited for this if it had nothing to do with The Joker.

But greedy WB wanted "name/brand recognition" so....I'm not excited.

[phonogram12]

I'd be excited for this if it had nothing to do with The Joker.

But greedy WB wanted "name/brand recognition" so....I'm not excited.

I have to agree. There's nothing about this movie that doesn't look good, IMHO. But the whole Joker connection when there clearly isn't one is what's going to keep me from seeing it.

[Batman Begins 2005]

[Batman Begins 2005]

Just out:

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

[Mistah K88]

Hmm, I don't exactly know how I feel about this movie again. I've been teeter tottering between negative and positive feelings with this one. I've never been to big on making Joker a sympathetic character, so I'll have to see exactly how things go...

[kingaliencracker]

This is such a mixed bag for me. I have no doubt the movie will be good from a technical standpoint. But I just feel they really didn't need to connect it to Joker and the Batman mythos since it really doesn't have anything to do with what is established with Joker.

I also have a hard time getting into the Joker without Batman. IMO he just doesn't work as well alone or with other heroes.

But we'll see. I'll keep an open mind.

[BatmanJones]

This movie looks amazing.

[numberthirty]

This is such a mixed bag for me. I have no doubt the movie will be good from a technical standpoint. But I just feel they really didn't need to connect it to Joker and the Batman mythos since it really doesn't have anything to do with what is established with Joker.

I also have a hard time getting into the Joker without Batman. IMO he just doesn't work as well alone or with other heroes.

But we'll see. I'll keep an open mind.

Which would be what?

To me, this seems perfectly in line with the possible origin story in The Killing Joke.

[Rac7d*]

Hope this is well received, we dont take to well with lunatic Caucasian males today

[kingaliencracker]

Which would be what?

To me, this seems perfectly in line with the possible origin story in The Killing Joke.

Except that Batman, in all in-continuity incarnations, is intricately involved in the "creation" of The Joker.

[Jim Kelly]

Man, you guys really like to confuse yourselves and get in your own way of enjoying what looks like a well-made movie.

In live action, the Joker has never been Batman-made. In the 1966 TV show and movie, we're never told how Joker got that way--as far as I remember. And even if we are, I doubt it has anything to do with Batman.

In the 1989 movie, Jack makes Batman (unwittingly), not the other way around. And (no spoilers please), it's possible that there's a similar plot in JOKER.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as we know, the Joker has no connection to Batman. And I'll add this is the first time we see a Joker with scars and where he's clearly wearing make-up--so he can't have had the vat and chemicals origin. Although, I think the make-up itself was inspired by Cesar Romero--where even my seven-year old self had to realize this guy was wearing make-up over his moustache (Romero was famous enough back then that we saw him on the TV in other things, where he clearly had a moustache).

The Jared Leto Joker, who knows his origin? But I don't recall that he's connected to Batman in his origins--and I'm not sure if he's wearing make-up or if we're supposed to believe he was in a vat of chemicals. But it looks to me like it's all body-modification--meaning Joker did this to himself.

I never watched GOTHAM beyond the first season, but from what I know second-hand there was a quasi-Joker character who appeared before Bruce became Batman.

There's never been a live action Joker that corresponded exactly to the comic books--Romero is about as close as you get. And all versions of Batman on screen take liberties with the Caped Crusader--I never watch them expecting to see a faithful adaptation of the comics.

And when it comes to comics, there are multiple Joker and Batman versions. There are stand alone stories of the Joker that have nothing to do with Batman. And there are Elseworlds and stories that might as well be called Elseworlds.

Really, it seems to me, if you're a big comic book fan, you have to go out of your way to find a reason not to accept this particular movie, when you've accepted every other live action treatment. If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, go ahead. I just don't understand why.

[Clark_Kent]

Man, you guys really like to confuse yourselves and get in your own way of enjoying what looks like a well-made movie.

In live action, the Joker has never been Batman-made. In the 1966 TV show and movie, we're never told how Joker got that way--as far as I remember. And even if we are, I doubt it has anything to do with Batman.

In the 1989 movie, Jack makes Batman (unwittingly), not the other way around. And (no spoilers please), it's possible that there's a similar plot in JOKER.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as we know, the Joker has no connection to Batman. And I'll add this is the first time we see a Joker with scars and where he's clearly wearing make-up--so he can't have had the vat and chemicals origin. Although, I think the make-up itself was inspired by Cesar Romero--where even my seven-year old self had to realize this guy was wearing make-up over his moustache (Romero was famous enough back then that we saw him on the TV in other things, where he clearly had a moustache).

The Jared Leto Joker, who knows his origin? But I don't recall that he's connected to Batman in his origins--and I'm not sure if he's wearing make-up or if we're supposed to believe he was in a vat of chemicals. But it looks to me like it's all body-modification--meaning Joker did this to himself.

I never watched GOTHAM beyond the first season, but from what I know second-hand there was a quasi-Joker character who appeared before Bruce became Batman.

There's never been a live action Joker that corresponded exactly to the comic books--Romero is about as close as you get. And all versions of Batman on screen take liberties with the Caped Crusader--I never watch them expecting to see a faithful adaptation of the comics.

And when it comes to comics, there are multiple Joker and Batman versions. There are stand alone stories of the Joker that have nothing to do with Batman. And there are Elseworlds and stories that might as well be called Elseworlds.

Really, it seems to me, if you're a big comic book fan, you have to go out of your way to find a reason not to accept this particular movie, when you've accepted every other live action treatment. If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, go ahead. I just don't understand why.

I'd be inclined to agree, except for the part in Batman '89 where Batman clearly drops Jack into the vat of chemicals (people will argue this and say he lost his grip, but watch it again in 4K or HD and watch Batman's face...Keaton played the scene in a specific way, he didn't lose grip, he let go and you can hear Jack scream because of it).

As for Leto's Joker, we don't know if Batman was involved but it's heavily implied that the vat Harley jumps into is the same one that made Joker white. Also, when he jumps in to fish her out, he remains unaffected by the acid while she has clearly changed.

[Vakanai]

Man, you guys really like to confuse yourselves and get in your own way of enjoying what looks like a well-made movie.

In live action, the Joker has never been Batman-made. In the 1966 TV show and movie, we're never told how Joker got that way--as far as I remember. And even if we are, I doubt it has anything to do with Batman.

In the 1989 movie, Jack makes Batman (unwittingly), not the other way around. And (no spoilers please), it's possible that there's a similar plot in JOKER.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, as far as we know, the Joker has no connection to Batman. And I'll add this is the first time we see a Joker with scars and where he's clearly wearing make-up--so he can't have had the vat and chemicals origin. Although, I think the make-up itself was inspired by Cesar Romero--where even my seven-year old self had to realize this guy was wearing make-up over his moustache (Romero was famous enough back then that we saw him on the TV in other things, where he clearly had a moustache).

The Jared Leto Joker, who knows his origin? But I don't recall that he's connected to Batman in his origins--and I'm not sure if he's wearing make-up or if we're supposed to believe he was in a vat of chemicals. But it looks to me like it's all body-modification--meaning Joker did this to himself.

I never watched GOTHAM beyond the first season, but from what I know second-hand there was a quasi-Joker character who appeared before Bruce became Batman.

There's never been a live action Joker that corresponded exactly to the comic books--Romero is about as close as you get. And all versions of Batman on screen take liberties with the Caped Crusader--I never watch them expecting to see a faithful adaptation of the comics.

And when it comes to comics, there are multiple Joker and Batman versions. There are stand alone stories of the Joker that have nothing to do with Batman. And there are Elseworlds and stories that might as well be called Elseworlds.

Really, it seems to me, if you're a big comic book fan, you have to go out of your way to find a reason not to accept this particular movie, when you've accepted every other live action treatment. If you want to shoot yourselves in the foot, go ahead. I just don't understand why.

While I might disagree with a few specific examples you gave, I agree with the general gist of the message here - It looks like a good movie, it's a version of Joker that fits in well enough for an Elseworlds take, and who cares if you could have changed the name and references to make it not the Joker and still come out with basically the same movie, it still looks like a damn good movie and it is still the Joker whether it needed to be or not. If you think the movie looks like something you're interested in watch it, if not don't, but do we really need to be going "not my Joker!" over this?