Joker changed everything...

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I'd find that to be an accomplishment if the movie actually had anything to do the Joker, as it is now it's just another movie about a sad person with a bad life going crazy only with an added clown motif given attention because it had Joker's name on it, and I don't see that as anything noteworthy.

Uh, apologies, but I don't think that point makes the effective argument that Joker is somehow invalid as either an origin for the Joker or as a true comic book film. Mostly, I'm struggling to find any meaningful difference between what you just laid out here and Joker's origin as told in the Killing Joke. You know, that comic book that is remembered as one of the most quintessential Joker stories ever written?

It's not like villain origin stories being about sad people going crazy is, well, anything new. You could literally pick up any Batman comic from the 80s or 90s and you could see a story centering around a villain with a traumatic backstory going crazy and swearing to take down Batman. At the end of the day, Joker is still a film that is steeped in Batman lore. So, yes, it's a comic book film.

[manwhohaseverything]

Make a kite man movie. Have it reach a billion. Then i will call that revolutionary.

[Skullkid]

Uh, apologies, but I don't think that point makes the effective argument that Joker is somehow invalid as either an origin for the Joker or as a true comic book film. Mostly, I'm struggling to find any meaningful difference between what you just laid out here and Joker's origin as told in the Killing Joke. You know, that comic book that is remembered as one of the most quintessential Joker stories ever written?

It's not like villain origin stories being about sad people going crazy is, well, anything new. You could literally pick up any Batman comic from the 80s or 90s and you could see a story centering around a villain with a traumatic backstory going crazy and swearing to take down Batman. At the end of the day, Joker is still a film that is steeped in Batman lore. So, yes, it's a comic book film.

People constantly use this defenses to me and as far I'm concerned it doesn't work, the Killing Joke actually had comic book elements in it, it wasn't some sob story with the Joker's name on it, the guy in that movie wasn't a supervillain he was just a wacko who got his hands on a gun, he was no criminal masternd, no agent of chaos, just a mental patient off his meds and frankly that's not Joker, its about as far removed from a comic book movie as could be and I'm not gonna praise it just because they got the greenlight to use Joker's name on a movie that has nothing to do with him beyond superficial references they needed to make for the producers.
You really wanna talk supervillains origins but I'm pretty sure if I saw a movie based around Bane or Mr Freeze I'd see Venom or Freeze's Ice Gun not them just going crazy.

[Killerbee911]

Joker hasn't changed anything, Any honest DC fan and comic book movie fan will admit, That a Joker sequel(or movie in that lane) having that massive success again would be feat more amazing than the first one success. This is not going lead to a bunch of small budget dark villain base movies and certain fans have been crapping of Marvel "formula" movies and yet people are basically looking forward to series of "formula" movies like it would be a great thing. Joker work so well because it was created to be this one off thing. Thats is only lesson to be learned be your own unique thing.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

People constantly use this defenses to me and as far I'm concerned it doesn't work, the Killing Joke actually had comic book elements in it, it wasn't some sob story with the Joker's name on it, the guy in that movie wasn't a supervillain he was just a wacko who got his hands on a gun, he was no criminal masternd, no agent of chaos, just a mental patient off his meds and frankly that's not Joker, its about as far removed from a comic book movie as could be and I'm not gonna praise it just because they got the greenlight to use Joker's name on a movie that has nothing to do with him beyond superficial references they needed to make for the producers.
You really wanna talk supervillains origins but I'm pretty sure if I saw a movie based around Bane or Mr Freeze I'd see Venom or Freeze's Ice Gun not them just going crazy.

Isn't the whole point of the Joker that he's just a normal guy who went insane? Isn't that the whole meaning of the mantra "all it takes is one bad day"? Last I checked, the Joker doesn't have a freeze gun or a super-serum style drug giving him beyond-human strength. Also, we actually did have Bane in a movie...where he didn't really have Venom. Joker, by the end of the movie, seems to welcome his role as the self-appointed "leader" of this cult of violence that's formed in his name. That sounds kind of like an agent of chaos and a supervillain to me.

Also, assuming we can label something a "comic book element" (even though I think it's reductive to do so because it belittles comics as a medium), what were the comic book elements that Killing Joke had that the Joker film lacked?

But, while we're on this topic, what makes a comic book villain a comic book villain? Is it colorful gadgets? That is definitely called into question by the fact that characters like Zsasz and Kingpin exist. Is it the moniker (i.e. "Joker", "Two-Face", "Black Mask", etc.)? Again, that's questionable, but even the film has Arthur take on the moniker of "Joker." In the end, though: even if the movie was missing some "element" that made Joker into a true "supervillain, it was about Arthur Fleck ascending to the role of a supervillain, not him being a fully formed one. That was kind of the point of it.

Your argument is based on a single premise: that there's a distinct formula for something to be called a comic book movie. I think that that's not just false, but that that argument trivializes comics (and the films based on them) by limiting the type of stories that can be told with them. You're essentially saying a character-driven story about the life of a human being cannot be deemed a comic book story. That's reductive because (a) comics actually tell those types of stories all the time (i.e. Gotham Central, Lois Lane, Watchmen, Marvels, or literally any comic Image publishes) and (b) it plays right into the narrative of those who claim CBMs can never be "real cinema" because, well, exploring the lives of human beings is what cinema (or any art form for that matter) is all about.

[Agent Z]

Joker hasn't changed anything, Any honest DC fan and comic book movie fan will admit, That a Joker sequel(or movie in that lane) having that massive success again would be feat more amazing than the first one success. This is not going lead to a bunch of small budget dark villain base movies and certain fans have been crapping of Marvel "formula" movies and yet people are basically looking forward to series of "formula" movies like it would be a great thing. Joker work so well because it was created to be this one off thing. Thats is only lesson to be learned be your own unique thing.

Disliking the Marvel formula and wanting to see a new type of formula are not mutually exclusive.

[Skullkid]

Isn't the whole point of the Joker that he's just a normal guy who went insane? Isn't that the whole meaning of the mantra "all it takes is one bad day"? Last I checked, the Joker doesn't have a freeze gun or a super-serum style drug giving him beyond-human strength. Also, we actually did have Bane in a movie...where he didn't really have Venom. Joker, by the end of the movie, seems to welcome his role as the self-appointed "leader" of this cult of violence that's formed in his name. That sounds kind of like an agent of chaos and a supervillain to me.

Also, assuming we can label something a "comic book element" (even though I think it's reductive to do so because it belittles comics as a medium), what were the comic book elements that Killing Joke had that the Joker film lacked?

But, while we're on this topic, what makes a comic book villain a comic book villain? Is it colorful gadgets? That is definitely called into question by the fact that characters like Zsasz and Kingpin exist. Is it the moniker (i.e. "Joker", "Two-Face", "Black Mask", etc.)? Again, that's questionable, but even the film has Arthur take on the moniker of "Joker." In the end, though: even if the movie was missing some "element" that made Joker into a true "supervillain, it was about Arthur Fleck ascending to the role of a supervillain, not him being a fully formed one. That was kind of the point of it.

Your argument is based on a single premise: that there's a distinct formula for something to be called a comic book movie. I think that that's not just false, but that that argument trivializes comics (and the films based on them) by limiting the type of stories that can be told with them. You're essentially saying a character-driven story about the life of a human being cannot be deemed a comic book story. That's reductive because (a) comics actually tell those types of stories all the time (i.e. Gotham Central, Lois Lane, Watchmen, Marvels, or literally any comic Image publishes) and (b) it plays right into the narrative of those who claim CBMs can never be "real cinema" because, well, exploring the lives of human beings is what cinema (or any art form for that matter) is all about.

At the end of the movie he's still some schlub with mental problems, not a supervillain.
No joker venom, no bang gun, not even a purple suit, he just ain't the Joker just a man in clown make up.
And let's see in the Killing Joke, it had Batman, Gordon, Joker's origin ended with him falling in acid, there wasn't just the sad back story but people just love to pretend that's the only thing in the story.
And then I really can't take you seriously because you're putting words in my mouth, I never said there was a formula comic book movies need to follow, the one I want is that the movies actually resemble the comics they're based on, and joker doesn't do that it rehashes Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy with a comic book character's name on it.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

At the end of the movie he's still some schlub with mental problems, not a supervillain.
No joker venom, no bang gun, not even a purple suit, he just ain't the Joker just a man in clown makeup.

You mean just like how Heath Ledger's Joker in Dark Knight was a man in clown makeup? I never saw a bang gun in Dark Knight. And, uh, Phoenix's suit is a marron-like purple. I didn't get the memo that that was somehow invalid. The film ends with Phoenix basically ascending to the role of leader of this "Joker cult." That sounds like a textbook Joker to me.

And let's see in the Killing Joke, it had Batman, Gordon, Joker's origin ended with him falling in acid, there wasn't just the sad back story but people just love to pretend that's the only thing in the story.

Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen it, but Joker literally ends with the death of the Waynes. And Thomas Wayne plays a huge role in the film. Again, the film is steeped in Batman lore.

And then I really can't take you seriously because you're putting words in my mouth, I never said there was a formula comic book movies need to follow, the one I want is that the movies actually resemble the comics they're based on, and joker doesn't do that it rehashes Taxi Driver and King Of Comedy with a comic book character's name on it.

Okay, so if films should resemble the comics they're based on, then did you take issue with Infinity War and Endgame completely cutting out Lady Death as part of Thanos's motivation? Or what about the fact that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created Ultron instead of Hank Pym? Or how about Wonder Woman completely cutting out the contest she had to go through to prove herself worthy to leave Themiscyra? Comic book movies tend to take liberties. It's just odd that you're singling out this particular film for doing so.

But on that note, Joker, as a character, also tends to lend himself to that gritty, street-criminal trope that seems quite at home in Scorcese films. Like, honestly, I felt like this Joker origin could have taken the place of Moore's origin for him from Killing Joke or could have served as the origin of the Joker from Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns.

[astro@work]

We heard the same thing about Dark Knight and the only lesson WB seemed to learn from it was that they needed to make a dark Superman movie that divided the fanbase. In other words, it's not that there isn't a good lesson to be learned from Joker, it's that's WB seems to learn the wrong lessons from these things anyway.

100% this.

What DC SHOULD have learned is that leaning into the authenticity of the character makes for a great movie and brings in the fanbase.

Instead, they tried to make a Dark Knight movie with Superman as the lead. Which is why they don't have a successful Superman movie franchise yet.

[Skullkid]

You mean just like how Heath Ledger's Joker in Dark Knight was a man in clown makeup? I never saw a bang gun in Dark Knight. And, uh, Phoenix's suit is a marron-like purple. I didn't get the memo that that was somehow invalid. The film ends with Phoenix basically ascending to the role of leader of this "Joker cult." That sounds like a textbook Joker to me.



Spoiler alert for those who haven't seen it, but Joker literally ends with the death of the Waynes. And Thomas Wayne plays a huge role in the film. Again, the film is steeped in Batman lore.



Okay, so if films should resemble the comics they're based on, then did you take issue with Infinity War and Endgame completely cutting out Lady Death as part of Thanos's motivation? Or what about the fact that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created Ultron instead of Hank Pym? Or how about Wonder Woman completely cutting out the contest she had to go through to prove herself worthy to leave Themiscyra? Comic book movies tend to take liberties. It's just odd that you're singling out this particular film for doing so.

But on that note, Joker, as a character, also tends to lend himself to that gritty, street-criminal trope that seems quite at home in Scorcese films. Like, honestly, I felt like this Joker origin could have taken the place of Moore's origin for him from Killing Joke or could have served as the origin of the Joker from Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns.

I just hear more and more excuses.
There's taking liberties and then there's making something completely unrelated to the source material and slapping on familiar names for cash and attention which is all this did.

[The Darknight Detective]

I just hear more and more excuses.
There's taking liberties and then there's making something completely unrelated to the source material and slapping on familiar names for cash and attention which is all this did.

Heh. If it were only anywhere near that simple to do...

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I just hear more and more excuses.
There's taking liberties and then there's making something completely unrelated to the source material and slapping on familiar names for cash and attention which is all this did.

Well that's your interpretation and that's fine. But if you have a problem with this movie for taking liberties, then there are a lot of movies you should have a problem with. The MCU took huge liberties with certain characters, particularly Iron Man and Spider-Man, and in a lot of cases retroactively changed the comics to be more like the movies.

[Skullkid]

Well that's your interpretation and that's fine. But if you have a problem with this movie for taking liberties, then there are a lot of movies you should have a problem with. The MCU took huge liberties with certain characters, particularly Iron Man and Spider-Man, and in a lot of cases retroactively changed the comics to be more like the movies.

How do you keep missing the point of what I'm saying when I'm spelling it in no uncertain terms?
How much simpler do I need to put it for you understand?

[ironman2978]

How do you keep missing the point of what I'm saying when I'm spelling it in no uncertain terms?
How much simpler do I need to put it for you understand?

Comic Book movies and every comic book adaption does spins on the classic characters ever since their radio counterpart, that doesn't mean the interpretation is inherently unfaithful or nothing like the comics like some fans like to make it out to be. It is more like a person driving down a different path to go to the same destination.

With Killing joke, take away the comic book elements, and it is a tale examining not only what separates people from being the Joker. The Joker movie is steeped in Batman lore, it just examines it from a different angle using The Taxi Driver and King of Comedy as inspiration but also has similarities to Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns, etc just taking place in a grounded New York. The Joker is a character who has had multiple takes and can be used multiple ways and still come back to the same path and has been shown time after time again (Whether it was 1989 Batman or Gotham or Dark Knight or Joker). Honestly his speech to Murray Franklin and him in the middle of the crowd is his taking on the role of the Joker in this story. Joker doesn't need Joker gas or prank weapons to be identified as the Joker,it's just little touches that make the story much more enjoyable imo.

[The Darknight Detective]

Comic Book movies and every comic book adaption does spins on the classic characters ever since their radio counterpart, that doesn't mean the interpretation is inherently unfaithful or nothing like the comics like some fans like to make it out to be. It is more like a person driving down a different path to go to the same destination.

With Killing joke, take away the comic book elements, and it is a tale examining not only what separates people from being the Joker. The Joker movie is steeped in Batman lore, it just examines it from a different angle using The Taxi Driver and King of Comedy as inspiration but also has similarities to Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns, etc just taking place in a grounded New York. The Joker is a character who has had multiple takes and can be used multiple ways and still come back to the same path and has been shown time after time again (Whether it was 1989 Batman or Gotham or Dark Knight or Joker). Honestly his speech to Murray Franklin and him in the middle of the crowd is his taking on the role of the Joker in this story. Joker doesn't need Joker gas or prank weapons to be identified as the Joker,it's just little touches that make the story much more enjoyable imo.

In a nutshell, it's an Elseworlds version. It doesn't have to subscribe completely with the source material, though the movie is unquestionably a Batman world.