I know I probably left out a lot of your favorites. I originally planned to talk about Scott Snyder & Greg Capullo’s “Death of the Family” as well as older stories like “The Laughing Fish” and “Joker’s Five Way Revenge,” but those bits were unfortunately cut for time. Of course feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments. They don’t even have to be comics! Did you ever see the episode “Joker’s Favor” from The Animated Series? Good stuff! -Will
@@TevyaSmolka you forgot about poison ivy they reinvented her as well she wasn't originally a botanist who studies plants and has a weird Twisted obsession with plants that wants to protect them instead of humans or her grayish White skin tone finally gave her a backstory we did not know her backstory until around the late 80s but personally I think the new 52 did it better by connecting her to the green and explain why she loves plants so much and plus her abusive inspire to both get revenge on him but experiment with plants
@@TevyaSmolkaso what do you think of the joker do you think we should get a definitive origin since elseworld story they're making or we don't need to see the origin of the joker
Bro you forgot about when Joker got his own comic book back in the 70s why wasn't that in your list that was one of the 100% focus on Joker's perspective
There have been stories death delved into why he's so obsessed with chaos in that stuff like you read some stories where they say he was abused as a child and had violent tendencies or the story where he was mysterious character who basically was the greatest bank robbery but was bored and want to kill himself until he he met Batman or origin the where the expanded on what inspired him to become the Red Hood
Never thought about this from your perspective but I kind of agree. My favorite Joker story is Death of the Family where Joker targets the Bat family. The way they are affected by what he does is profound.
You should listen to the directors explanation behind the vision of this film. It's not supposed to be a conventional comic book film adaptation. You are analyzing the thing as if it were.
To me what makes the joker so incredible is that he’s so mysterious and we never knew what happened to him, yeah I know there were some comics about his origin but it was never something that was actually focused on and in this movie, they’re even giving him a name for God’s sake
To me what makes a good Joker story is not only how he affects the world around him but how he sees the world, Grant Morrison understands this perfectly because The Clown at Midnight is all about how the Joker perceives us and Batman, why he does what he does or how he came to be what he is is never explicitly said in the story, but you can still understand it because of how he acts and thinks. Regarding the movie, I'm kinda afraid that the they're gonna try and make him sympathetic, he shouldn't be someone you could understand, he's crazy for a reason. I also think it's weird to have a Joker without a Batman, it's said that a villain can have a story without a hero but in the Joker's case I don't think that's true, the parallelisms of their stories is what makes them such an interesting couple, his motivations are still there and still justified under his own terms but I feel like he won't have much of a leg to stand on without his Bat counterpart.
Since bruce is yoing in the movie, and the clips show some of the people getting behind the clown movement, do you think this entire movie could be about a short lived older joker (Phoenix), how he affects society, and he he himself could be the origin story for a younger joker who would become adult bruces rival?
you mean as if joker and whoever his love interest in this movie is(saw it in the trailer) has a child and that child is the rival of Bruce. the old joker ends up slashing his child face like described in the dark knight movies. I know its a stretch but sounds like a nice prequel if you ask me. then the movie fades away with the joker doing is maniacal laugh. nice and loud HahahHAhaHAha.
@@fightlikegentlemen yes exactly!!! Could easily see it being his potential kid, maybe he even goes crazy because of whatever reason ends up killing Phoenix's joker, maybe even something bruces father had a hand in, which would give good motive to take it out on bruce...or i could even see it being someone who was really moved by jokers motives and as a "victim of society or w.e." takes up the joker mantle in the absence of pheonix after whatever death or end is bound to happen to him. I just honestly do not see pheonix ending up as batmans rival bc the age differences are far too large.
It's an else world realistic approach plus the director says it doesn't give a precise origin because some scenes aren't what they really seem to be and Joker( arthur) is unreliable source for telling his origin just like in comics
The ending will blow everyone's mind, the ending it kinda plays with the "multiple choice past". (His mom doesn't exist, Zazie's character is already dead from the very start, Arthur did not meet with Thomas Wayne etc.)
That's great and all, but what about a new perspective or story based on this character? It may not be an adaptation of old material but it could be a great movie!
Strongly disagree with your take on killing joke. It's very much about the joker. It spends the bulk of its time on an extended flashback origin story that not only has a clearly defined character arc, but has the only clearly defined character arc in the work. The whole "one bad day" bit of the comic is trying to tie Joker's typically hand-waved motivations down into a singular message rooted entirely in the joker's singular perspective and history, something the character doesn't even have outside of the Killing Joke. The other characters in the story all exist to facilitate this story about the Joker - Babs is just a prop, Gordon's barely more than a prop - again the plot to turn Gordon crazy is used to facilitate and elevate the Joker's origin, *not* the other way around, which is evident in how quickly and cleanly that subplot is disposed of once its work is done. Even batman is there for commentary on and contrast to the Joker, he doesn't actually do much at all apart from that. So yeah, Killing Joke is *absolutely* a story about the Joker, and trying to twist it out of shape to fit your thesis only undermines it where instead you should have used it as a counter-example. Most good Joker stories aren't about the Joker. Killing Joker *is* about the Joker, but is it all that good? It has it's selling points, but over the years it's also collected a lot of detractors, including its own author, as Alan Moore has stated in interviews that he considers it one of his weaker works. And even if you do think Killing Joke is good, what kind of stories does it allow for beyond that? Like, it's important to remember that Killing Joke was originally intended as a stand alone elseworlds book, not part of main continuity. I don't think it would have so definitively described who the Joker was or what he was about otherwise, because it doesn't leave a lot of places to go with the character. If you take KJ as canon, then you know what the Joker's about, you know what his philosophy is. Every other Joker story, stories that aren't about the Joker but are instead about Batman solving interesting puzzles to thwart the Joker's equally puzzling crimes, is instead reduced to being at least in part another story about the Joker's philosophy. A story made weaker yet because by the end of KJ you not only know what Joker's philosophy is, you also know that it's just plain wrong. Like, not wrong as in immoral, wrong as in incorrect. One bad day doesn't turn anyone crazy, because Gordon doesn't go grazy. End of. Even Joker can basically see that at the end of the book. Maybe he's too far gone to turn back, but there's also just no point in continuing to go forward, and certainly no point to the audience continuing to read about it if he does. And this, imo, is a big party of why references to the joker's motivations in KJ are so rare in continuity otherwise, and why those few instances where later continuity did call back to Killing Joke, such as when Riddler told Joker his wife was killed instead of dying in an accident, were, at least in my opinion, were so weak. That's why the Joker's depiction doesn't change in works after KJ, not because KJ wasn't about the joker, but because KJ doesn't leave anywhere to go with the particular Joker it depicts. That said, Killing Joke isn't the only Joker story that really is *about* the Joker, nor even the only Joker origin story that is. I'd argue that the "Lovers and Madmen" arc of Batman Confidential is at least as much about the Joker as it is about Batman. The Joker again has a clear character arc that the events of the rest of the book largely revolve around. His goals and mental state change over the course of the book, and his decisions shape the events that unfold as much as batman's do. Honestly, I kind of prefer L&M to KJ myself, especially as a Joker origin story. Sure, as a book it's not as good. The writing and the art aren't as strong, it doesn't make as good use of the comic medium, but in terms of the story I really like that Joker's already a master criminal before becoming the Joker, so his skill set later on make more sense. It also gives his relationship with Batman pride of place in his origin, which fits better with his obsession with Batman later. His core motivation of basically being bored and disenchanted until confronted with Batman - simultaneously an opponent skilled enough to pose an entertaining challenge and just the most perfect and hilarious straight man in that he's both fundamentally ridiculous and unwaveringly straight faced. Like, on the one hand that's a more shallow and unfocused core motivation than the one in KJ, but it's also more open ended, it's one that easily maps to the Joker's primary purpose as a character - being an antagonist for batman coming up with interesting crimes for audiences to watch Batman try to solve. It's also, despite the grisly nature of Joker's crimes in the book, just a lot more upbeat compared to KJ's relentless downer tone. Joker should be an evil clown, but not a sad one. So yeah, where KJ is an exception that proves the rule - in that it's a Joker story that is *most definitely* about the joker, but one that manages that by explaining the Joker in a way that sort of stops the character from functioning *as* the Joker afterwords if you take it as canon, L&M is a different sort of exception, in that yeah, it really is a story about the Joker, but it's also one that builds the character up rather than breaking them down. But at the same time, that's really a story that can only be told once. Once the Joker *is* the Joker, there's not too much more evolution to do with the character what won't break their ability to serve as an entertaining antagonist of the month after that.
The killing Joke was always meant to be part of the DC canon. I don't know why people keep believing otherwise but that is a misconception. there was even a Batgirl Special that showed Batgirl's retirement before the events of the Killing Joke.
I think the best thing about the joker is how he turns his insanity into his super power... and how intelligent a character he is despite his twisted goals and endgame. Incredibly excited to see a different more authentic portrayal
I agree with you it should be a small back story because the joke usually references it. There shouldn't be to many dedicated scenes for the back story.
If your point is about the Joker never having a growth or an arc, then I think it's a pretty lousy argument. Take Magneto, for example. He's been featured as the protoganist in various comics and was also going to get his own origin film. But his character has always been stuck in that "mutants - good, men - bad" bottle. His character development started with him being a Holocaust survivor and ended with him becoming Magneto. Since then, he's always been the same character. The Joker is like that as well. All the possible origin stories he has, they all indicate the growth from one person to another, and after that, the character becomes stuck in his current self forever. This new movie seems to have taken the same route. Most of the movie is about him turning into the Joker, and then becoming the Joker.
Reading the joker graphic novel after with the Shelly scene left me horrified by the character of the joker. I think seeing Barbra shot so many times and not being alive when she wasn’t oracle. Going in fresh actually demonstrated how it must of felt for Barbra bring shot
I owned feats of Clay as a kid and it was my first and only exposure to Batman TAS. It gave me nightmares and I refused to watch that VHS ever again while growing up.
I think that giving the Joker a back story and an empathetic point of view doesn´t change a thing, as Batman said ordinary people don´t crack, maybe its jut you, so no matter the sentimental story behind, he is the one that mede the choice of going crazy and turnuing up side down everybody´s life around him. And I think we can see that in the traillers, he is crazy even at the begining and by what seems to be the end he is just shapeing his crazynes and spreading it to the city.
The Joker was born when a completely different man went mad. They may look alike and sound alike, but they aren’t the same person. But this movie still looks great though, in my opinion
I think you are looking at the joker to much in a box it’s an else world story about a totally different character than the classic we all know and love
Yeah, I'm not sure I like the trend of making movies about bad guys but without the heroes. Venom did this too, idk, it's just a weird trend, but it's making money so I guess that's why they're being made.
I think the problem is you guys are looking too much into the comic lore remember there only taking small elements of comic books like killing joke and etc but the movie is about a character study kinda like what taxi driver was it’s a look into the making of a psychopath I think this movie is very loosely based on the comic it’s the making of a man.
I have always seen the Joker as less of a person and more of an infection.. He enters a system and causes disfunction and havoc while drawing in others to his madness. Like a virus infecting a host.
Eh, the new Joker movie looks terrible. Looks like it could've been a great movie, had it not been tied to the comics, cause this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Joker, other than they set it in "Gotham", and they call him "Joker". But I'm sure everyone will love it, cause it's "serious", and not your typical comic book movie, it's a "movie movie". One second, everyone is crying about how Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman, the next, they're praising Todd Phillips for giving us a Joker movie that has nothing to do with the comics. I don't understand DC fans. And I know the excuses will roll in as to why it's "different" this time, along with a TON of Alan Moore/TKJ quotes. I get it, I've read comics too.
Transfiguration the difference being that if Snyder’s movies had been good in addition to being different from the Superman we know, I would’ve given them a pass and enjoyed them for what they were. The problem is that they not only misunderstand the character, they’re awful movies simultaneously.
I think it's mostly that there are a lot of different DC fans who want different things. Even Snyder's superman had it's defenders praising it for being darker and more serious, and there's still a mini movement of them that pretend the Justice League movie was somehow going to be good before Joss got his hands on it. Personally I'll probably watch this movie. It does seem ok for what it's trying to be - that being a mashup of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. But yeah, not sure why that concept would benefit from the comic book licence, apart from getting butts in seats - though if that's the only reason for it I guess I could understand it.
Transfiguration I was just replying to the pretty shallow generalization that DC fans are inconsistent in their desires for movie adaptations. I’m a massive DC fanboy and I’m more than willing to accept a very different interpretation of a character as long as it’s done well. Snyder failed at that last bit. Maybe Phillips won’t. We’ll see.
Personally, I think that giving The Joker a definitive origin, hurts the character, just like I think that doing so made Wolverine a less interesting character. Sometimes it's okay to keep things mysterious
I know I probably left out a lot of your favorites. I originally planned to talk about Scott Snyder & Greg Capullo’s “Death of the Family” as well as older stories like “The Laughing Fish” and “Joker’s Five Way Revenge,” but those bits were unfortunately cut for time. Of course feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments. They don’t even have to be comics! Did you ever see the episode “Joker’s Favor” from The Animated Series? Good stuff!
-Will
WULFF DEN I can understand that
@@TevyaSmolka you forgot about poison ivy they reinvented her as well she wasn't originally a botanist who studies plants and has a weird Twisted obsession with plants that wants to protect them instead of humans or her grayish White skin tone finally gave her a backstory we did not know her backstory until around the late 80s but personally I think the new 52 did it better by connecting her to the green and explain why she loves plants so much and plus her abusive inspire to both get revenge on him but experiment with plants
DC marvel Fanboy yeah that’s true and you’re right about that
@@TevyaSmolkaso what do you think of the joker do you think we should get a definitive origin since elseworld story they're making or we don't need to see the origin of the joker
Bro you forgot about when Joker got his own comic book back in the 70s why wasn't that in your list that was one of the 100% focus on Joker's perspective
Joker is an unknowable force of chaos. That's why it's extremely difficult to do any origin story of him.
There have been stories death delved into why he's so obsessed with chaos in that stuff like you read some stories where they say he was abused as a child and had violent tendencies or the story where he was mysterious character who basically was the greatest bank robbery but was bored and want to kill himself until he he met Batman or origin the where the expanded on what inspired him to become the Red Hood
Never thought about this from your perspective but I kind of agree. My favorite Joker story is Death of the Family where Joker targets the Bat family. The way they are affected by what he does is profound.
I thought the joker solo series from 1975-1976 was pretty cool
Weird thing is no one knows who is really is the Joker in the comics even Batman.
The clayface Arc in the animated series really impacted young me. We were lucky to have a kids show with such story telling!
You should listen to the directors explanation behind the vision of this film. It's not supposed to be a conventional comic book film adaptation. You are analyzing the thing as if it were.
I love BTAS. I love how in Heart Of Ice it's sad what Mr. Freeze went through but like you said he is still a villain
To me what makes the joker so incredible is that he’s so mysterious and we never knew what happened to him, yeah I know there were some comics about his origin but it was never something that was actually focused on and in this movie, they’re even giving him a name for God’s sake
Coincidentally here in Canada, Teletoon aired both the Mr Freeze and Clayface episodes of BTAS last night.
A good story is a good story. My expectations aren't going to keep me from enjoying this (or disregarding it) based on its own merits.
To me what makes a good Joker story is not only how he affects the world around him but how he sees the world, Grant Morrison understands this perfectly because The Clown at Midnight is all about how the Joker perceives us and Batman, why he does what he does or how he came to be what he is is never explicitly said in the story, but you can still understand it because of how he acts and thinks.
Regarding the movie, I'm kinda afraid that the they're gonna try and make him sympathetic, he shouldn't be someone you could understand, he's crazy for a reason. I also think it's weird to have a Joker without a Batman, it's said that a villain can have a story without a hero but in the Joker's case I don't think that's true, the parallelisms of their stories is what makes them such an interesting couple, his motivations are still there and still justified under his own terms but I feel like he won't have much of a leg to stand on without his Bat counterpart.
Feet of clay was a GREAT story. I love that show. Greatest stuff ever put to television.
Since bruce is yoing in the movie, and the clips show some of the people getting behind the clown movement, do you think this entire movie could be about a short lived older joker (Phoenix), how he affects society, and he he himself could be the origin story for a younger joker who would become adult bruces rival?
you mean as if joker and whoever his love interest in this movie is(saw it in the trailer) has a child and that child is the rival of Bruce. the old joker ends up slashing his child face like described in the dark knight movies. I know its a stretch but sounds like a nice prequel if you ask me. then the movie fades away with the joker doing is maniacal laugh. nice and loud HahahHAhaHAha.
@@fightlikegentlemen yes exactly!!! Could easily see it being his potential kid, maybe he even goes crazy because of whatever reason ends up killing Phoenix's joker, maybe even something bruces father had a hand in, which would give good motive to take it out on bruce...or i could even see it being someone who was really moved by jokers motives and as a "victim of society or w.e." takes up the joker mantle in the absence of pheonix after whatever death or end is bound to happen to him. I just honestly do not see pheonix ending up as batmans rival bc the age differences are far too large.
Best joker breakdown I ever witness!!!! You actually influenced me to go get those novels
- Big Batman/Joker fan 🤞🏽
It's an else world realistic approach plus the director says it doesn't give a precise origin because some scenes aren't what they really seem to be and Joker( arthur) is unreliable source for telling his origin just like in comics
I literally can not wait for the Joker movie.
Joker of Injustice: Gods Among Us struck me as the personification of evil, very mischievous like say Puck or Loki.. but a maniac multiplied by 20
The ending will blow everyone's mind, the ending it kinda plays with the "multiple choice past". (His mom doesn't exist, Zazie's character is already dead from the very start, Arthur did not meet with Thomas Wayne etc.)
That's great and all, but what about a new perspective or story based on this character? It may not be an adaptation of old material but it could be a great movie!
Strongly disagree with your take on killing joke. It's very much about the joker. It spends the bulk of its time on an extended flashback origin story that not only has a clearly defined character arc, but has the only clearly defined character arc in the work. The whole "one bad day" bit of the comic is trying to tie Joker's typically hand-waved motivations down into a singular message rooted entirely in the joker's singular perspective and history, something the character doesn't even have outside of the Killing Joke. The other characters in the story all exist to facilitate this story about the Joker - Babs is just a prop, Gordon's barely more than a prop - again the plot to turn Gordon crazy is used to facilitate and elevate the Joker's origin, *not* the other way around, which is evident in how quickly and cleanly that subplot is disposed of once its work is done. Even batman is there for commentary on and contrast to the Joker, he doesn't actually do much at all apart from that.
So yeah, Killing Joke is *absolutely* a story about the Joker, and trying to twist it out of shape to fit your thesis only undermines it where instead you should have used it as a counter-example. Most good Joker stories aren't about the Joker. Killing Joker *is* about the Joker, but is it all that good? It has it's selling points, but over the years it's also collected a lot of detractors, including its own author, as Alan Moore has stated in interviews that he considers it one of his weaker works.
And even if you do think Killing Joke is good, what kind of stories does it allow for beyond that? Like, it's important to remember that Killing Joke was originally intended as a stand alone elseworlds book, not part of main continuity. I don't think it would have so definitively described who the Joker was or what he was about otherwise, because it doesn't leave a lot of places to go with the character. If you take KJ as canon, then you know what the Joker's about, you know what his philosophy is. Every other Joker story, stories that aren't about the Joker but are instead about Batman solving interesting puzzles to thwart the Joker's equally puzzling crimes, is instead reduced to being at least in part another story about the Joker's philosophy.
A story made weaker yet because by the end of KJ you not only know what Joker's philosophy is, you also know that it's just plain wrong. Like, not wrong as in immoral, wrong as in incorrect. One bad day doesn't turn anyone crazy, because Gordon doesn't go grazy. End of. Even Joker can basically see that at the end of the book. Maybe he's too far gone to turn back, but there's also just no point in continuing to go forward, and certainly no point to the audience continuing to read about it if he does. And this, imo, is a big party of why references to the joker's motivations in KJ are so rare in continuity otherwise, and why those few instances where later continuity did call back to Killing Joke, such as when Riddler told Joker his wife was killed instead of dying in an accident, were, at least in my opinion, were so weak. That's why the Joker's depiction doesn't change in works after KJ, not because KJ wasn't about the joker, but because KJ doesn't leave anywhere to go with the particular Joker it depicts.
That said, Killing Joke isn't the only Joker story that really is *about* the Joker, nor even the only Joker origin story that is. I'd argue that the "Lovers and Madmen" arc of Batman Confidential is at least as much about the Joker as it is about Batman. The Joker again has a clear character arc that the events of the rest of the book largely revolve around. His goals and mental state change over the course of the book, and his decisions shape the events that unfold as much as batman's do. Honestly, I kind of prefer L&M to KJ myself, especially as a Joker origin story. Sure, as a book it's not as good. The writing and the art aren't as strong, it doesn't make as good use of the comic medium, but in terms of the story I really like that Joker's already a master criminal before becoming the Joker, so his skill set later on make more sense.
It also gives his relationship with Batman pride of place in his origin, which fits better with his obsession with Batman later. His core motivation of basically being bored and disenchanted until confronted with Batman - simultaneously an opponent skilled enough to pose an entertaining challenge and just the most perfect and hilarious straight man in that he's both fundamentally ridiculous and unwaveringly straight faced. Like, on the one hand that's a more shallow and unfocused core motivation than the one in KJ, but it's also more open ended, it's one that easily maps to the Joker's primary purpose as a character - being an antagonist for batman coming up with interesting crimes for audiences to watch Batman try to solve. It's also, despite the grisly nature of Joker's crimes in the book, just a lot more upbeat compared to KJ's relentless downer tone. Joker should be an evil clown, but not a sad one.
So yeah, where KJ is an exception that proves the rule - in that it's a Joker story that is *most definitely* about the joker, but one that manages that by explaining the Joker in a way that sort of stops the character from functioning *as* the Joker afterwords if you take it as canon, L&M is a different sort of exception, in that yeah, it really is a story about the Joker, but it's also one that builds the character up rather than breaking them down. But at the same time, that's really a story that can only be told once. Once the Joker *is* the Joker, there's not too much more evolution to do with the character what won't break their ability to serve as an entertaining antagonist of the month after that.
This comment could've been two paragraphs long
@@superbogopop Eh, no one's paying me to edit.
The killing Joke was always meant to be part of the DC canon. I don't know why people keep believing otherwise but that is a misconception. there was even a Batgirl Special that showed Batgirl's retirement before the events of the Killing Joke.
I think the best thing about the joker is how he turns his insanity into his super power... and how intelligent a character he is despite his twisted goals and endgame. Incredibly excited to see a different more authentic portrayal
the joker has a bunch of origin stories tho from him being the OG “Red hood” which most refer to
I agree with you it should be a small back story because the joke usually references it. There shouldn't be to many dedicated scenes for the back story.
If your point is about the Joker never having a growth or an arc, then I think it's a pretty lousy argument. Take Magneto, for example. He's been featured as the protoganist in various comics and was also going to get his own origin film. But his character has always been stuck in that "mutants - good, men - bad" bottle. His character development started with him being a Holocaust survivor and ended with him becoming Magneto. Since then, he's always been the same character. The Joker is like that as well. All the possible origin stories he has, they all indicate the growth from one person to another, and after that, the character becomes stuck in his current self forever. This new movie seems to have taken the same route. Most of the movie is about him turning into the Joker, and then becoming the Joker.
Anton A. Isn’t “turning into the Joker” the same thing as “becoming the Joker”?
@@baronessvondengler, no, because the first is about the journey, the second is about the full transformation into the character.
The killing joke was incredible
Reading the joker graphic novel after with the Shelly scene left me horrified by the character of the joker. I think seeing Barbra shot so many times and not being alive when she wasn’t oracle. Going in fresh actually demonstrated how it must of felt for Barbra bring shot
I owned feats of Clay as a kid and it was my first and only exposure to Batman TAS.
It gave me nightmares and I refused to watch that VHS ever again while growing up.
WHOA! FIRST
Edit: I love this channel so much.
Second then so close ahhaha
I’m the Joker, baby!
I think that giving the Joker a back story and an empathetic point of view doesn´t change a thing, as Batman said ordinary people don´t crack, maybe its jut you, so no matter the sentimental story behind, he is the one that mede the choice of going crazy and turnuing up side down everybody´s life around him.
And I think we can see that in the traillers, he is crazy even at the begining and by what seems to be the end he is just shapeing his crazynes and spreading it to the city.
The Joker was born when a completely different man went mad. They may look alike and sound alike, but they aren’t the same person. But this movie still looks great though, in my opinion
I think you are looking at the joker to much in a box it’s an else world story about a totally different character than the classic we all know and love
Also this story is not about the joker it’s about a man with mental illness going through a society than the joker
Came here for the content but stayed for the comic reccomendations
Yeah, I'm not sure I like the trend of making movies about bad guys but without the heroes. Venom did this too, idk, it's just a weird trend, but it's making money so I guess that's why they're being made.
Good vid!
I hope at the end of the movie its revealed that Arthur Fleck wasnt/isnt even his real name
Not sure I agree with this take but I like it and the research that went into it!
I think the problem is you guys are looking too much into the comic lore remember there only taking small elements of comic books like killing joke and etc but the movie is about a character study kinda like what taxi driver was it’s a look into the making of a psychopath I think this movie is very loosely based on the comic it’s the making of a man.
love ya , but you repeated yourself quite a bit here. still enjoyed the vid tho
His gonna put y'all back in chains…
Not Bob?
I have always seen the Joker as less of a person and more of an infection.. He enters a system and causes disfunction and havoc while drawing in others to his madness. Like a virus infecting a host.
Eh, the new Joker movie looks terrible. Looks like it could've been a great movie, had it not been tied to the comics, cause this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Joker, other than they set it in "Gotham", and they call him "Joker". But I'm sure everyone will love it, cause it's "serious", and not your typical comic book movie, it's a "movie movie". One second, everyone is crying about how Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman, the next, they're praising Todd Phillips for giving us a Joker movie that has nothing to do with the comics. I don't understand DC fans. And I know the excuses will roll in as to why it's "different" this time, along with a TON of Alan Moore/TKJ quotes. I get it, I've read comics too.
Transfiguration the difference being that if Snyder’s movies had been good in addition to being different from the Superman we know, I would’ve given them a pass and enjoyed them for what they were. The problem is that they not only misunderstand the character, they’re awful movies simultaneously.
@@DarthSnugglePuss , well, how do you know this movie is good? It hasn't even come out yet.
I think it's mostly that there are a lot of different DC fans who want different things. Even Snyder's superman had it's defenders praising it for being darker and more serious, and there's still a mini movement of them that pretend the Justice League movie was somehow going to be good before Joss got his hands on it.
Personally I'll probably watch this movie. It does seem ok for what it's trying to be - that being a mashup of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. But yeah, not sure why that concept would benefit from the comic book licence, apart from getting butts in seats - though if that's the only reason for it I guess I could understand it.
Transfiguration I don’t. So I’ll judge it when it comes out.
Transfiguration I was just replying to the pretty shallow generalization that DC fans are inconsistent in their desires for movie adaptations. I’m a massive DC fanboy and I’m more than willing to accept a very different interpretation of a character as long as it’s done well. Snyder failed at that last bit. Maybe Phillips won’t. We’ll see.
We get it you don't expect it to be good. Also wtf is that on your wrist?
Personally, I think that giving The Joker a definitive origin, hurts the character, just like I think that doing so made Wolverine a less interesting character. Sometimes it's okay to keep things mysterious
I'll watch your videos, Will. Bob let's his racism slip out a little too often these days..
👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🤯