I don't know if it's for the sake of pretentious cinema being pretentious, or for the advocacy of mental health, or just a snap back at the 'I-word' army. Whatever the reason.

Tell me you're terrified of being in control of a franchise without telling me you are.

I won't stand for the act of wasting a perfect setup, because let's just say it honestly—the real reason here is insecurity, intimidation, and the battle that followed. When making a movie, you either feel like a god (after all, you’re creating a whole new world and events from scratch) or like a simple follower (you look up to those before you, copying or paying homage to what you see as greater). Totally off-topic, but it happens a lot in today’s cinema, which is why most movies feel the same, or have literally the same plot—just presented differently. Don’t get me wrong, I adored both movies—the symbolic aspects, the meta commentary, the visuals, the character creations... up until the last few minutes of the second movie.

Watching the last few minutes of the second movie to me was painful—not because I was shocked, but because I was disappointed. Oh, so we really are going that way, huh? It really seemed to me that the director got cold feet about the risk he had taken. It’s a dumb comparison, but it reminds me of a gender reveal video I saw where the kid was initially excited to pop the balloon revealing the gender of the child for the parents, but then got too scared of the task in their hands. Like a kid looking at their parents for support, or asking someone to take the task off their hands—the director didn’t want to face the battle when it came to a better-written character. He gave up, let the balloon fly away, and handed over the baton to something he was more comfortable with—what he sees as a greater portrayal. This resulted in completely wasting everything the actors, operators, sound designers, makeup artists, etc. had worked for and viewers time really. And instead of paying homage, it turned into a caricature.

To reinvent the Joker.

Why doesn’t the last scene of the movie land, even though it was set up from the beginning? The timing was right, the pacing was good, and the surprise was there. What went wrong?

This won’t be a funny, joking-related allegory. It was the misunderstanding of the source material.

When you're creating a character from scratch, you have all the freedom you want. But when you have source material...Oh boy. Arthur Fleck’s character was a blank canvas for Todd Phillips. You have this creature that never appeared in any comics before. So he won’t be compared to any of the other versions in terms of "bringing the character to life." He is his own character in his own version of Gotham. The possibilities are endless. So you take the character, you stick the notes to him of who he is, and then comes the final note: "Joker." It’s in the name of the movie, it’s used in the movie, it’s what the character himself gently asks to be called. And with that comes the personality change. We have a free character that we are putting into the frame of the Joker. Now he can be compared to the others.

How does the comparison go? Arthur Fleck may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. Arthur Fleck may not be the mastermind of crime. But what Arthur Fleck does have is the spark. And sometimes, a spark is all you need to start a raging flame.

So we focus on the story of the poor, beaten-up, abused character. We relate to him. We suffer when he suffers, we laugh when he... (couldn’t help myself). And then he gets this one more note stuck to him, which changes him. But are we mad about the change? Why would anyone be mad about a character with such a past who finally stands up for himself? It is a breaking moment—he’s broken. But he is (even if manic) happy. And it means a lot.

Send in The Clown.

Spending even a year in a mental hospital (Jesus, I know for a fact that only three months can be insufferable) can take a toll on a person. So I’m not mad about Arthur going quiet again. I don’t have issues with the plot, really. Most of the things that happen are still in character for him.

The failure of the movie for me was in the young inmate character. To me, this is giving up. Not like a rude “F you” in the face, just stinky, lazy, “I give up.”

If this is, in Todd’s eyes, a tribute to Heath Ledger’s Joker character, that’s just... sad.

Ignorance is bliss, but it’s a temporary pass.

Let’s go back to the beginning.

In Batman #1 (1940), the Joker was introduced as a murderous thief with a passion for making money through criminal acts. He was a psychopath, motivated by greed, and was willing to commit brutal acts just for the thrill of it.

The character, till the year 2024, has been changed and exaggerated in many ways. We’ve had a bunch of different versions of the Joker, but one thing stays constant: The "real" Joker would never be inspired by somebody else’s actions—and definitely not by Arthur Fleck*(who?)*. And that simple thing the director miserably failed to understand.

You can’t have Joker without The Joker.

The fact that this really wasn’t in the plans for the character from the beginning shows, and no matter how hard you try to twist your own narrative to make it work, it simply doesn’t.

Arthur Fleck was created to be The Joker, whether the director likes it or not. It all just fits together too well.

Imitation is the laziest form of flattery.

So... this is how I got these scars?

Misunderstanding the character you want to pay tribute to is a whole different level of failure. Whether the director agrees or not that this was supposed to be Heath Ledger's Joker—we are not blind. And we are not dumb.

So, if we have the debate over whether he was supposed to be the Joker or not finished, let’s go to why it was a terrible choice.

You didn’t like the angry kid (in spirit) character you made and how he was received? Don’t worry—let’s introduce another angrier kid character to kill off the first one. It’s not really a supercat for a superrat, but more like a bullied kid and a bratty bully. In the joke he says is everything you need to know about the character. He sees himself as a psychopath (wow, edgy), he’s violent and narcissistic. And he works with the guards, which is just such jock bullshit, really. Watching it, I felt like I was watching schoolyard bullying.

Great, not only did you fail your own franchise, but you also made the other one trashy.(sorry)

The carnival is over.

^(Psst... I have a way to save it all. I know my comics, I know my movies. I’ll design it the right way, for free, really. I studied the heck out of human anatomy, the medications, the prison system. I know the insides of psychiatric hospital life:) . I know my characters, I know good references. And I’m a female, so about those misogynistic accusations... just wait for a sign. I'll be kind I promise.)

I thought it was actually pretty good, and that's coming from someone who HATES musicals. I wouldn't necessarily call Joker 2 a "musical," but it had its moments.

Look close, it’s made of Has. (Not has, like “This has been fun”, but has, like the plural of ha)

Did the guards not care that Arthur was in the middle of a courtroom trial and could easily rat them out in court and on live TV? Raping or assaulting someone, however you interpreted it (I personally think it was rape), who's going to have a heavily televised courtroom appearance the very next day is a very stupid idea. Wouldn't they have thought "we shouldn't go too rough on him, at least not until his trial's over"? Especially considering the fact that they were asylum guards and work for an institution that's trusted by the government to rehabilitate people. They also literally fucking murdered a mentally ill dude who was slightly rowdy and defiant to them. Did they just assume Arthur would keep his mouth shut? If so, why were they so sure? I get that the state was against Arthur but still, he and a fellow patient were victims of serious crimes by people who were supposed to "take care" of them, and Arthur's literally going to be in front of the state and hundreds of people the very next day. I'm sure you guys have interesting and smart explanations for this, lemme know what you think.

A few days ago, I was talking to someone online who admitted they HATED the Joker movies and thought Jared Leto did a better job than Joaquin Phoenix. To be honest, this bothered me a little, especially since it was in response to a post I made praising the first Joker movie.

I can understand hating the second movie, but why would anyone hate the first one? I started thinking about why they might feel that way, though, and I came up with a few possibilities.

1. Understanding Elseworlds Takes

The Joker movies are Elseworlds stories–in DC lore, Elseworlds are stories that take place in different continuities than main canon. They’re often much more experimental, taking liberties with beloved characters that canon cannot take, and can often provide a much deeper and more nuanced depiction of a character.

If you’re unfamiliar with Elseworlds, though, the changes can seem jarring and perhaps frustrating, as favorite characters often find themselves in new roles. Batman may suddenly be a petty thief, or Superman may be a tyrant dictator, for example. I suppose that could be shocking for people unaware of Elseworlds and other stories that are not in continuity.

2. Surface-Level Joker Lore

On a surface level, the Joker is just a foil for Batman, nothing else. Where it gets interesting are the stories he tells other people and the stories they believe and tell about him. This paints a very different picture of the character, one more in line with the sort of character the Joker movies portrayed, actually--an unreliable narrator whose stories are just as important to understanding who he is as the reality of what he does.

A Clever Acknowledgment of Joker’s History

I also think it’s worth acknowledging how much the filmmakers clearly understood the character. There are nods to Killing Joke with Arthur’s “one bad day” that finally leads him to snap and fully embrace the Joker persona. They even referenced, much more cleverly than in Suicide Squad, the idea of Joker being an idea, a movement, a thought virus, not a person. Arthur also relies on his fans to keep up the larger-than-life persona–Harley being the most important one, which is very much in keeping with most popular Joker lore as well.     

Arthur Isn’t My Favorite Joker

Don’t get me wrong, though, I’m not saying Phoenix's Joker Arthur Fleck should be part of the main canon–that honor goes to Mark Hamill’s Joker, but I’m trying to point out why it’s a decent Elseworlds take that respects the Joker character in a lot of ways.

To reference Three Jokers, I think Arthur makes a decent “Clown" Joker. In that story, Joker makes three clones of himself, each one representing a persona he assumed in his criminal career–the clown, the criminal, and the comedian. Arthur more embodies the clown–a tragic misunderstood figure who ultimately finds fulfillment in laughing at his own suffering and the suffering of others.   

In Closing

The Joker movies are a reinterpretation of a classic character, designed to provoke thought and spark conversation, not face off against Batman. To me, they capture the essence of the Joker: a character who thrives on ambiguity, reinvention, and challenging our perceptions of what makes a villain.

What do you think? Are the Joker movies a brilliant reinterpretation or a step too far from the character’s roots?

I hope that the green hair chalk is somewhat visible 🙃

Really wish it had a happier ending. And it really pissed me off how Harley basically played Arthur for a fool exactly how his lawyer predicted. He escaped, they could've went and built the mountain and lived happily ever after. She basically said "i don't like you, I like the joker" that was messed up. I see the movie getting a lot of hate, probably from people who are stuck in nostalgia and always hate on sequels. I enjoyed it but the ending was upsetting, wish it could've been a tiny bit more positive that maniac didn't have to kill him.

In Arthur’s journal there is a poem mentioning Alex Day.. Who the hell is Alex Day?

There was a joker fan series that came out in like 2009 that was done really well. It consisted of tapes from Arkham asylum that were taken by the doctors to record his therapy and treatment sessions. The person who played the joker was really good at acting (ledger joker). I messaged the channel at the time and got a response that it was a group of college friends that put it together for fun. But anyway I can’t find it anywhere does anyone else remember watching this?

I read the bad reactions and decided wait until I could stream it. I avoided all further commentary and spoilers. After Thanksgiving dinner was ready, I sat down with my son and we watched it. This is also what we did with Madame Web.

Except, this was good.

I am as baffled by the bad reactions to this movie as when I was first told by otherwise intelligent and savvy people that the film Starship Troopers glorified militarism. I expected similar to the first film, an unreliable narrator, classic entertainment nostalgia, and a harsh realistic view of an mentally troubled and abused man. Done! I was warned to expect bad singing (yes), an attack on me as a superhero fan (No.), and a sad ending (yes but also no). I can see hating the film because you truly loathe musicals. All other complaints feel like someone's media obsession. I don't get all the meta projection. I liked the first Joker, but I am not represented in Joker 2.

Yes, I would have probably enjoyed it slightly more if Arthur had given in to the fantasy. I like that sort of thing.

I don't like 'grimdark' versions of my aspirational superhero stories. I wasn't a fan of the wave of deconstruction that followed Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. But in the strangest way, it feels like Joker 2's Arthur returned to the roots of superhero stories as aspirational morality plays. He went into his depths and was celebrated for giving in to his worst impulses. His fall granted him an apparently real girlfriend, followers, fame, a voice in popular culture. He began to care again, his facade cracking when he realized he'd hurt his friend Mr. Puddles, enough so that when one of his prison fans gets murdered for supporting him, it shocks him completely out of his euphoric fantasy. Arthur pulled himself out of his dark hole, tried to get better, faced up to his responsibilities, as a murderer and a potential father. Is this not courage?

Too bad it's still Gotham.

Back to the movie commentary, I liked the concept of Dark Harley. Her background as a psychiatrist was always a throwaway joke. It doesn't really make sense for the person she seems to be, but she's appealing, so who cares. This Harley was the result of a writer taking that personal history seriously. Its also a role reversal for their normal comic cartoon/comic book relationship. Harley was a villain who hurt people, but she was a victim of an abuser and was childlike mentally. In Joker 2, Arthur is a villain, but he is not the one in control of the relationship, he is manipulated and groomed, and is a bit childlike in his emotional vulnerability. I like that, corrupt as she is, Harley is genuinely crazy. She contemplated suicide when Arthur abandoned their fantasy, and sings herself offstage from Arthur, still dedicated to that fantasy.

I love the movie Chicago and appreciated the 'songs as internal thinking' device. I did cringe at Joaquin Phoenix' voice a bit, but it tickled me to realize the singing improves as the fantasy gets deeper.

I would have liked to have seen Arthur go all the way to execution as closure of his story. The random violent death seemed a bit flat. Then I realized what Arthur's murderer was doing. I laughed, I'm afraid.

In JLA: The Nail, a plot twist is that Joker died but cannot die because he's like a god of insanity. There's a lot to like in The Nail, but that is not one of them. I hate the idea of mystic Joker. In comic book canon, the number of Jokers has increased. In the Gotham television show, a proto-Joker created a following similar to the Joker. Other people taking on his mantle became a plot point. Arthur's persona taking on a life of its own beyond him, that others covet, makes Joker a memetic idea that, truly, is immortal in a psychological way, no magic involved. Joker's followers are all potential Jokers, subservient as long as the Joker matches his role, but eager to take his place if he fails. So I thought the ending was perfect (if sad).

Glad I watched it. My son also enjoyed it. :)

I know this subject has been beaten into the ground, but given that I truly did enjoy both movies i thought I could offer a perspective that isn't totally new but helped color my enjoyment of both movies.

JOKER (2019): I loved this movie when I saw it the first time but I didn't know why. I had been a prominent voice in my social circles who believed it was a bad idea to give this character a "cinematic origin story", that it would completely strip away the mystique of The Joker. So why did i enjoy it so much? Ultimately I came to two main points. Firstly, this universe is not in a continuity that affects any other depiction of the character or related characters- which in my mind, and I believe Todd Phillips stated, made this a character study which in my mind gives a bit more creative freedom to interpret how the filmmaker sees the character.

Secondly, I came away with the idea that Arthur Fleck may in fact be the one we see become the Joker, but i honestly believed the whole "inspired the real one" bit especially after the release of The Three Jokers. I was ready and willing to believe this could be the first step to the clown we eventually see fighting a lunatic in a bat costume.

So going into the second one i wasn't positive this was the "real" Joker but I sure was ready to be convinced one way or the other.

Joker: Folie à Deux: I went into this movie expecting some strange combination of Joker-esque violence and musical numbers and I was EXCITED. I was a theatre kid in high school and I've always loved musicals so this was no issue for me, that being said I get that not every fan of the Joker likes musicals.

What I feel we got was a continuation of the character study of the person this was truly always about, Arthur Fleck. A study of the man behind the make-up who inspired the insanity and violence that would come.

Connor storie Heath Ledger connection: NNNNAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

I really think the Todd Phillips movies should be viewed as a separate universe or continuity.