Why do people dislike Joker (2019)?

[Joker]

That has always kind of been an element to the Batman mythos though, like the fact that the Waynes are rich and they are killed by a crime induced by poverty. The Nolan films tried to address this by making the Waynes into 'good' billionaires and, just as a sort of real world reference, rich people often justify their wealth through their philanthropy. If we as a society are increasingly becoming aware that billionaires are a corrupting influence, shouldn't this be reflected in our media?

If you do that, then you really have to address it in the legacy of Batman. Batman has to be so distraught over his parents death that he dresses up as a ridiculous "Bat" to fight crime that originates from poverty. But then Batman has to address that his parents weren't doing anything to end that poverty, when they very easily could have. Then Batman, being smart, apparently, would have to address the poverty, which, again, he could. End or massively alleviate that poverty, and move on, no longer emotionally, or physically needing to be Batman.

It's easier if they were good rich people, who's efforts were cut short. And he just fights costumed maniacs and the mob. Less ethical quandary involved.

[Pinsir]

So is Batman. I am not ready to turn him into a villain because he's rich though.

I think this has been an issue around Batman for a while now though, like, we all know Bruce Wayne is rich, but...how does he maintain his wealth? It's always sort of been glossed over because its hard to write a 'good' billionaire by incorporating things a billionaire might actually do, like operate sweatshops, bribe politicians, or pollute. It should be noted that in Joker the 'crimes' of the elite are that they are indifferent to the impoverished and not that the people are being actively suppressed...it's still a pretty libby take on the issue.

[Agent Z]

So is Batman. I am not ready to turn him into a villain because he's rich though.

Batman has been characterized as more and more of an ******* for the past decades. Thomas Wayne was depicted as a flawed man but he wasn't a villain unlike the Telltale game.

[Farealmer]

I think this has been an issue around Batman for a while now though, like, we all know Bruce Wayne is rich, but...how does he maintain his wealth? It's always sort of been glossed over because its hard to write a 'good' billionaire by incorporating things a billionaire might actually do, like operate sweatshops, bribe politicians, or pollute. It should be noted that in Joker the
'crimes' of the elite are that they are indifferent to the impoverished and not that they are being actively suppressed...it's still a pretty libby take on the issue.

That's...a bigger issue than I want to get into on a Joker movie thread. I go to the politics thread for that kind of talk. But as Joker said above it raises issues that then raise the question of why have Batman at all? You could also use that for anyone. For example that could be used to justify having the Kents wearing MAGA hats and ask Clark why he hasn't exposed the liberal pedophile cult yet. I am not ready to turn comics into that. This reminds me of that "are superheroes fascist" thread in the community board.

[SiegePerilous02]

That has always kind of been an element to the Batman mythos though, like the fact that the Waynes are rich and they are killed by a crime induced by poverty. The Nolan films tried to address this by making the Waynes into 'good' billionaires and, just as a sort of real world reference, rich people often justify their wealth through their philanthropy. If we as a society are increasingly becoming aware that billionaires are a corrupting influence, shouldn't this be reflected in our media?

I feel like Gotham has enough other fictional billionaires that are complete pieces of **** to counterbalance the Waynes being genuinely good people.

Yeah the Waynes being good may be unrealistic, but if people can't tell the difference between a fantasy like Batman and reality, I don't know what to tell them.

Batman has been characterized as more and more of an ******* for the past decades. Thomas Wayne was depicted as a flawed man but he wasn't a villain unlike the Telltale game.

Batman being characterized as an ******* and Thomas being an ******* can both be bad. They don't really excuse each other.

[Pinsir]

If you do that, then you really have to address it in the legacy of Batman. Batman has to be so distraught over his parents death that he dresses up as a ridiculous "Bat" to fight crime that originates from poverty. But then Batman has to address that his parents weren't doing anything to end that poverty, when they very easily could have. Then Batman, being smart, apparently, would have to address the poverty, which, again, he could. End or massively alleviate that poverty, and move on, no longer emotionally, or physically needing to be Batman.

It's easier if they were good rich people, who's efforts were cut short. And he just fights costumed maniacs and the mob. Less ethical quandary involved.

I think it does make the story a bit more interesting though, if Batman goes on a crusade to avenge an idolized vision of his parents, grows up and finds his parents weren't the best, does that make his jihad any less valid? I think its the basis for a good story and I would argue, no, even if Batman's parents weren't angels, they still probably shouldn't have been gunned down.

tl;dr; I don't find Joker's depiction of Mr. Wayne at odds with Batman's broader mythology. Also the dude's wife could still be innocent.

[Username taken]

I’m not saying it’s perfect. The mental health aspects are a bit problematic, speaking as someone who’s studied psychology, it’s a bit derivative of Pre-Goodfellas Scorsese, the Batman elements are a bit too forced, but it had a lot of things going for it: Phoenix’s performance, the production values are amazing, I like how it gives the genre more variety and a chance for other CBMs to do something different than the “save the world” plotline. But why is it disliked to this degree?

It's a good movie but what really kept it going was Phoenix's performance.

If i had any criticism of it, it would be that it's not at all original.

[Joker]

does that make his jihad any less valid?

Violently opposing poor criminals instead of working with your billions of dollars to alleviate poverty and thus reduce crime greatly? I mean, I know why one's a popular comic book and the other doesn't exist, but it's a story that is at odds with itself.

[sunofdarkchild]

Violently opposing poor criminals instead of working with your billions of dollars to alleviate poverty and thus reduce crime greatly? I mean, I know why one's a popular comic book and the other doesn't exist, but it's a story that is at odds with itself.

In most versions Bruce's billions are used to alleviate poverty and for other social causes and he often goes out of his way to hire people he caught as Batman to work at Wayne Enterprises to give them a second chance. The idea of Batman differentiating between criminals who are acting out of desperation and poverty and those who are truly evil and wanting to help the former instead of putting them in jail is about as old as the character himself.

[SiegePerilous02]

In most versions Bruce's billions are used to alleviate poverty and for other social causes and he often goes out of his way to hire people he caught as Batman to work at Wayne Enterprises to give them a second chance. The idea of Batman differentiating between criminals who are acting out of desperation and poverty and those who are truly evil and wanting to help the former instead of putting them in jail is about as old as the character himself.

This, plus Bruce using his money to help Gotham in more mundane ways is just not very exciting to read about, which is why it is relegated to "off panel" most of the time. And it'd probably work more effectively if Batman's story was allowed to progress, but he's as much a slave of status quo publication as everyone else.

For his actual crusade, he spends most of his time battling garish over the top supervillain terrorists, organized crime, corrupt cops and politicians, and vampires, werewolves, aliens, giant robots, etc. The belief that "Batman beats up the poors" probably has some basis in some comics by certain authors, but the belief that it is a widespread regular aspect of the character always seems like a shallow attempt to score "woker than thou" points.

[williamtheday]

I think this has been an issue around Batman for a while now though, like, we all know Bruce Wayne is rich, but...how does he maintain his wealth? It's always sort of been glossed over because its hard to write a 'good' billionaire by incorporating things a billionaire might actually do, like operate sweatshops, bribe politicians, or pollute. It should be noted that in Joker the 'crimes' of the elite are that they are indifferent to the impoverished and not that the people are being actively suppressed...it's still a pretty libby take on the issue.

Marvel did that with Kyle Richmond (Nighthawk) back in 1970s Defenders.

[Joker]

I mean, I said as much a page or two ago... I get why it is what it is.

[Agent Z]

You use the Gaiman quote a LOT, and it always comes across as a shield to dismiss opinions/criticisms you don't like.

With everything being subjective and depending on execution, the Gaiman quote is way too simplistic and comes across as BS.

What I find BS and simplistic is saying that Joker isn't a comic book movie and the only people that like it are the ones who hate comic books.

Subjective opinion is one thing but I find that much of the criticism against this film is rooted in either arbitrary rules about what constitutes a comic book movie that other cbms don't follow or the notion it's pandering to mass shooters and incels. If dismissing those criticisms is wrong, I plead guilty.

[titanfan]

To me, the easiest answer is that it's dark and heavy and depressing and sad. And that's not why a lot of people go to movies. I thought a lot of people felt it was well made, they just didn't enjoy it.

They used the Joker name to lure people into what was otherwise an Oscar bait movie--I don't think that's bad per se, I'm glad people went into see a film like that. But you can't also expect that a lot of the casual audience wanted something more--fun?

[Agent Z]

To me, the easiest answer is that it's dark and heavy and depressing and sad. And that's not why a lot of people go to movies. I thought a lot of people felt it was well made, they just didn't enjoy it.

They used the Joker name to lure people into what was otherwise an Oscar bait movie--I don't think that's bad per se, I'm glad people went into see a film like that. But you can't also expect that a lot of the casual audience wanted something more--fun?

The casual audience liked it just fine. The biggest criticisms are coming from a vocal minority of comic book fans who wanted something else. Not everyone's definition of "fun" is the same.