Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
bud perhaps you need t go back t school and educate yourself. Its the job of any studio to make money or are you moronic enough t think otherwise
And Paramount would've made more money if they had made it faithful to the source material, as any other successful adaptation has shown.
I saw the first film and thought 'Well, it's well made and well acted, but so what? He's not the real Joker.' He's more like the guy who inspired the true Joker to rise decades later. He would be an old man by the time Bruce is trained and ready.
You can have different interpretations of the mythos, I get it. But one crucial thing is Joker's stance that he's not really insane; that something happened to him in his past that convinced him the world was insane instead, so the only true answer is anarchy and chaos. It's the source of his battle of wills with Batman, that people are inherently bad and anyone can fall.
Giving him a mental illness that he needs medication for in Joker, it's a crutch that changes things too much the wrong way.
Well that's the thing, he lost access to his medication and everything. People's disregard for those less fortunate than themselves is exactly what creates someone like the Joker; a broken system that not only leaves the vulnerable to suffer without the resources they need, but creates its own monsters as a result.
Even before this film, that was what I always got from Joker with what I understood of his vague backstory, as a failed comedian and all.
Originally posted by roughriderBut that is literally mentally illness. You cannot be a sane, chemically balanced individual and actually believe some bullshit like this- not even to mention of course that most personality disorders do in fact stem from childhood trauma. The entire "bro Joker is totally sane he just... has a different perspective heh heh" stance is just bullshittium comic book writers came up with to try to elevate Joker above the saturday morning cartoon villain he's always been.
that something happened to him in his past that convinced him the world was insane instead, so the only true answer is anarchy and chaos.
That's if they manage to get Lady Gaga as Harley to begin with, who would be an amusing elseworld Harley. Nothing's set in stone, but the sequel will try hard to be artsy like the first one, regardless.
From what I've seen, some who loved the first film and was initially excited for a followup won't be on board with the sequel if it's a musical, while the people who either didn't like the first film or thought a sequel was unnecessary are more interested in said sequel now because of that. Like Joker himself, pure chaos. You love to see it.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
From what I've seen, some who loved the first film and was initially excited for a followup won't be on board with the sequel if it's a musical...
Yeah, it depends. If it's a funny dark comedy musical like South Park or Monty Python or something I could be on board, but otherwise I don't do musicals. Not serious musicals.
Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
she is,, this turd is now a musical
I'll maintain somewhat of an open mind because I still hold Todd Phillips in pretty high esteem. So if it's a movie "with music in it" (something more like Blues Brothers, for example) then it could still be good. But if people sing dialogue most of the time forget about it..
At the very least she should have a better first impression than what Margot Robbie had from the first Suicide Squad film which unlike Joker was almost universally panned. Robbie took time to grow on people, and even then, the newer SS was the only one I really liked her in beyond being eye candy.
The Harley comparisons may not be as one sided as the Phoenix > Leto talk though.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
At the very least she should have a better first impression than what Margot Robbie had from the first Suicide Squad film which unlike Joker was almost universally panned. Robbie took time to grow on people, and even then, the newer SS was the only one I really liked her in beyond being eye candy.
Margot is hot, for sure, but I agree. She was good in Gunn's SS because she was better written and directed. But I still found her kind of annoying. But I think that's just the way the character is supposed to be.
Musicals are hit/miss for me, like I still can enjoy The Sound of Music and Grease, while Les Miserables (2012) was unwatchable.
But this being a musical has so much more potential to be a complete shitshow than great, and I think there's no middle ground here, we'll either be blown away or be cringing all the way through. Will wait for a preview.