Which is just so lame and gay, especially when you consider that Quinn was fine when she was The Joker’s Robin (like in BTAS), and (this is reaching deep into the recesses of minutiae) weren’t the witches introduced as somehow being involved in forcing the birth of Darth Maul with their dark force magic?
It’s literally just “ok take that cool, established element from the story and crank the lame to 10 and the gay to 11”
I actually had that one. It may have been the first EU novel I read which isn't great since it was set 8 years after ANH while Heir to the Empire happens almost right after RotJ, but it was still quite good from what I remember.
The original nightsisters were great. Mother Talzan was clearly evil yet also looking out for her kind (fair enough). The Disney stuff with them has been hit or miss. Acolyte is terrible, while the Jedi Fallen Order series does a great job with Merrin.
To be fair they actually haven't, not in a movie. If they did an as-originally-written Harley Quinn the femoids would lose their minds. She's sexually attracted to the Joker because she gets off on him being wicked, and the Joker literally does not reciprocate or care. He abuses and manipulates and uses her for his own machinations and she thinks they're in this intense romance and he cares about her, but he basically doesn't give a fuck if she lives or dies. He'd strangle her to death himself if she weren't a lead character.
She's the opposite of a girlboss. She's a worthless dopey tool and a subservient simp too stupid to realize how fucked her situation is.
It's the leftist bubble speaking. They sre surrounded with people that think exactly like them and have convinced themselves anything outside is hate speech and white supremacy.
Yet they make movies and games not even their own side consumes.
Joker and Lee (Harley Quinn) set off a bomb during Arthur's trial. Arthur flees after the blast, aided by his supporters. Eventually he reaches the stairs where Lee breaks up with him (as she realizes he’s not the joker, but his true self is Arthur) and then the police arrests him and sends him back to the asylum. Here a fellow inmate, comes to Arthur, to tell him a joke but instead of the punch line, he stabs him with knives in the stomach. Arthur is left to bleed and die and this fellow laughs psychotically, and gives himself the Joker/Heath Ledger style Glasgow smile with the knife. Movie ends. "That’s Life" cover by Gaga plays.
I guess they got pissed off that the audience had a more sympathetic reaction rather than what was intended that they must now punish the character and degrade him further.
One of the strengths of the original was showing how women can be just as toxic on a man's life as any other man could be. From a "fake empathy" therapist who pretends to care until she isn't paid to do so, to a mother who spends an entire life only thinking of herself and her "missed chance" for greatness (by babytrapping a rich man). Neither were "evil" but their damage was no less powerful and destructive on his psyche than the men who literally beat or bullied him.
So by the very notion of "give him a hot gf" the sequel was proving they had no intention of keeping any relatability or value. Every other detail of it, kept that desecration going.
I don't think anyone thought it would be any different ever since it was announced that it would be a musical and would feature Harley Quinn. If Hollywood wants to keep "owning the chuds" by continuing to set themselves on fire, I am all for it.
We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn.
Every single bit of information that came out about it demonstrated more and more that it was made for a completely different audience than the original. An original that functioned entirely as a self-contained piece and left very little actual wriggle room for a sequel that didn't change massively.
Yeah, and I suppose the character is ultimately somewhat meaningless without his role as anchor/mirror/foil to Batman…
Though with the first movie I almost thought they pulled off an “antihero for our societal collapse” / “a sick society will breed sick citizens” angle, if they absolutely had to “make their own ‘real’ movie and just call it Joker to get it made” (like the video reveals was a motivation of the director, I had never heard any of that). But you’re right lmao the musical numbers and the spirit cooking lady didn’t bode well for this one.
Pretty much. First movie isn't a masterpiece but you can see so much things into it, especially about the damage to men and how society treats them. This one will be a disaster, I won't even be watching it because I cannot stand gaga.
It's pretty rich seeing (((Todd Bunzl))) wagging his finger at the audience for laughing at the midget. Hollywood has spent years conditioning audiences to laugh at all matter of violence, gore, and sociopathic behavior so the midget not being able to reach the door knob looks like intentional humor. Todd himself puts shit like the decapitated giraffe and Alan's dad dying in his movies as jokes, what a hypocrite.
I never saw the first on the basis that a Joker origin story is a fundamental misreading the character (and villain origin stories are universally evil apologia). Whatever cultural baggage it was trying to throw out there certainly never helped matters.
What kills me is quinn can be used to make a good minor story just not modren quinn. harly is a suportive role, as a result she has only limited potental but its there nonetheless. they keep trying to make a colander into a soup pot and are surprised when the broth gets on the stove. heck rather then just complain i think i will take a stab at it and im the biggest hack i know.
One plot i think is the limit but could make for a nice short movie is harly having to spring joker outta arkam with most the plot being her and jokers goons doing the prepwork and dealing with various non batman setbacks and impediments along the way, some comical others not so much.
a few nice potental subversions, harly by springing the joker wrecked a plan that required him to be in arkam or joker had already escaped and had been watching harly for his amusement at some point bonus if hes hidden in the backround randomly in scenes eating popcorn or something.
Harley only works because she was a caricature of a real person we all know.
A retarded girl who keeps dating a very abusive guy and helping him be evil until she loses all her sympathy and isn't any better than him despite being a victim. We've all met that girl, and a lot of people even got burned trying to save her.
Once she "emancipated" herself from him to be strong and independent, it stopped being relatable because that never fucking happens.
The original movie was overrated. It was watching a vulnerable guy get beat up and beat down until it reached a single point which was the only point.
Whilst being interviewed by a cruel TV host who only brought him on the show to mock him, Arthur tells a joke: “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner, with a society that abandons him and treats him like shit?” Arthur rhetorically asks. Then he answers as he shoots the cruel TV host who was holding him up for amusement. The Joker yells, “You get what you deserve!”
Of course, Arthur's self awareness itself to ask the question and answer it breaks immersion to me. It is the author speaking to us. The director might as well have walked on set with a sign. It is a valid point though. The movie paints us a picture of a vulnerable disabled white male - one of the least celebrated and protected groups in our society.
It's difficult to see how it could have been followed though, without re-writing Fleck to be enormously less inadequate. The director had always said it was not set up for a sequel.
Specifically because he was so severely beaten and physically abused as a child that it caused permanent brain damage. This isn't a matter of simply being a crybaby or thin-skinned, he was actually disabled. That's not a "liberal" observation, that's a "watch the fucking movie" observation.
He is physically unable to control his laughter in stressful moments, to a point where he is shown to be coughing from the pain and lack of breath by the end of it. He had a fucking card to hand out for it because it happens so often and gets him into extreme trouble (which is how he ends up shooting those guys).
That precludes him from the vast majority of sectors of society because he might physically cease to function if stressed. Which means he is more disabled than anyone with Down Syndrome and many other things we give out disability for.
Though given how retarded you seem to be, I can see why he seems super functional from your position.
I know multiple people with tourettes which IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, who can work and function normally.
I watched the movie and saw nothing other than him being a piece of shit that was holding him back.
Laughing until it's hard to breath is not that bad, happens to me as well. That is an insane reach to say that makes him unable to function in society. Again, liberal thinking is that you can't overcome your issues and find your niche.
You think he couldn't be a landscaper because he laughs a lot?
It's almost like don't have a brain...
You are probably a kid though, still in school, otherwise you are a weak man, pathetic.
Tourettes is a literal disability, legally defined as such. Which your own words is "Exactly" what I described him having.
Which means legally speaking, by you saying he is exactly equal to someone with tourettes, he is disabled.
You rushed to downplay his disability so fast you didn't realize what you were tacitly admitting in doing so. A classic sign of someone on the backfoot trying to move a goalpost.
I think you're just trying to semantically deny that mental disability counts as a disability at all. Physical abuse physically damaged the development of his brain. It would be akin to his harddrive not being seated properly. I know he is disabled because it's plainly written out in the scenes where he steals the casefile for his mother when he visits Arkham, and it describes the abuse that he received as a child by the man that his mother dated.
That’s an interesting point/observation because even what I saw in the movie was basically just I thought it was asking “we all know people can fall through the cracks, what if society was nothing but a gaping pit?” - which, of course, feeds into the “revolutionary” narratives…and the one in the movie certainly seems a lot more like the Bolshevik Revolution than, say, the American Revolution lol
Didn't know this movie happened. Only just saw the advertising for it around town over the weekend. The whole "the world is a stage" is pretty suss to me.
Feels like they're just using the joker as an icon to push the usual modern day brainwashing unrelated to batman/joker lore
-- again I'm just basing this on the ad posters I've just seen around town
No, that's what people who write memes about the Joker think.
He isn't "lol so random, always do the opposite thing CHAOS" like post Ledger people think. He creates incredibly complex plans towards goals and is shown to regularly have a stable set of ideas and principles.
Heck his crossover with Carnage (a character meant to embody literal random chaos) had the two of them split because he hated Carnage's inability to be productive and accomplish tasks, while Carnage mocked him for being far too orderly.
He isn't "lol so random, always do the opposite thing CHAOS" like post Ledger people think. He creates incredibly complex plans towards goals and is shown to regularly have a stable set of ideas and principles.
Tbf Ledger's Joker still did this with the bank heist which had both elimination of the heisters as part of the design and then simply setting fire to half the money afterwards, money which was specifically mentioned to be the non-traceable kind as he went out of his way to leave that behind. The character just gets further memed because of Ledger's suicide and normies own retarded takes and Youtuber blogs which are retarded and wrong anyway.
Most people remember the "idea" of Ledger's Joker but forget the actual reality of what he did, and the fact that all his "philosophy" was proven to be actually false by the movie itself. Including when he tried to force it in a huff after it failed to materialize.
But that's not edgy and cool enough, so everyone just jerks off over "chaos lul" the same way they treated the guy from Jurassic Park saying "chaos theory" as super smart.
And if you still don't get it, it wasn't made for you.
(a few moments later)
Joker 2 failed because of white supremacists, misogynists, and Russian trolls.
>The chuds cost us our Harley Quinn spin off!!!!
Thank fucking Christ. They keep trying to make more and more media with her despite it never being wanted or ever being good.
"Real Harley Quinn has never been tried!"
Which is just so lame and gay, especially when you consider that Quinn was fine when she was The Joker’s Robin (like in BTAS), and (this is reaching deep into the recesses of minutiae) weren’t the witches introduced as somehow being involved in forcing the birth of Darth Maul with their dark force magic?
It’s literally just “ok take that cool, established element from the story and crank the lame to 10 and the gay to 11”
'The Courtship of Princess Leia' from 1994.
I actually had that one. It may have been the first EU novel I read which isn't great since it was set 8 years after ANH while Heir to the Empire happens almost right after RotJ, but it was still quite good from what I remember.
100% EU. They rode rancors in Empire at war. Was fun.
The original nightsisters were great. Mother Talzan was clearly evil yet also looking out for her kind (fair enough). The Disney stuff with them has been hit or miss. Acolyte is terrible, while the Jedi Fallen Order series does a great job with Merrin.
To be fair they actually haven't, not in a movie. If they did an as-originally-written Harley Quinn the femoids would lose their minds. She's sexually attracted to the Joker because she gets off on him being wicked, and the Joker literally does not reciprocate or care. He abuses and manipulates and uses her for his own machinations and she thinks they're in this intense romance and he cares about her, but he basically doesn't give a fuck if she lives or dies. He'd strangle her to death himself if she weren't a lead character.
She's the opposite of a girlboss. She's a worthless dopey tool and a subservient simp too stupid to realize how fucked her situation is.
I can't remember how often I've read "If you don't like it don't watch our movie/play our game." lately.
For some inexplicable and totally unrelated reason it's always followed up with "movie/game lost hundreds of millions".
It's the leftist bubble speaking. They sre surrounded with people that think exactly like them and have convinced themselves anything outside is hate speech and white supremacy.
Yet they make movies and games not even their own side consumes.
As if we couldn't see in the trailer for this that the Joker was going to be a supporting actor in his own sequel...
Spoiler. Spoilers. Spoilers.
Imagine being this fragile the execs kill their own franchise because their original "fuckup" was popular with "the wrong people".
Director Todd Phillips recently told Variety that there will definitely not be "Joker 3."
Really?
Oh, the crater that movie is gonna leave is gonna be hot enough to toast marshmallows with...
I believe the trope for this is "Torch the Franchise and Run."
I guess they got pissed off that the audience had a more sympathetic reaction rather than what was intended that they must now punish the character and degrade him further.
No way lmao
One of the strengths of the original was showing how women can be just as toxic on a man's life as any other man could be. From a "fake empathy" therapist who pretends to care until she isn't paid to do so, to a mother who spends an entire life only thinking of herself and her "missed chance" for greatness (by babytrapping a rich man). Neither were "evil" but their damage was no less powerful and destructive on his psyche than the men who literally beat or bullied him.
So by the very notion of "give him a hot gf" the sequel was proving they had no intention of keeping any relatability or value. Every other detail of it, kept that desecration going.
I don't think anyone thought it would be any different ever since it was announced that it would be a musical and would feature Harley Quinn. If Hollywood wants to keep "owning the chuds" by continuing to set themselves on fire, I am all for it.
We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn.
That was my thought as well.
Every single bit of information that came out about it demonstrated more and more that it was made for a completely different audience than the original. An original that functioned entirely as a self-contained piece and left very little actual wriggle room for a sequel that didn't change massively.
Yeah, and I suppose the character is ultimately somewhat meaningless without his role as anchor/mirror/foil to Batman…
Though with the first movie I almost thought they pulled off an “antihero for our societal collapse” / “a sick society will breed sick citizens” angle, if they absolutely had to “make their own ‘real’ movie and just call it Joker to get it made” (like the video reveals was a motivation of the director, I had never heard any of that). But you’re right lmao the musical numbers and the spirit cooking lady didn’t bode well for this one.
c’mon party people, everybody say ho
c’mon party people, everybody here we go
It's depressing knowing we're going to have to go through 2-3 more decades of millennial spite writing like this.
Knew this movie was doomed as soon as they cast Lady Gaga in it.
Pretty much. First movie isn't a masterpiece but you can see so much things into it, especially about the damage to men and how society treats them. This one will be a disaster, I won't even be watching it because I cannot stand gaga.
Gaga is so goddamn ugly I genuinely believe that that's a man.
Reminder that they will never EVER cast a "diverse" actress to play Harley Quinn.
Or for that matter, EVER cast anyone but a blonde white woman to voice her.
https://i.imgur.com/k5PBzSn.png
Because she's theirs, not yours.
Just a cohencidence, I'm sure.
Surely not the strawman to defend against the racist argument!
It's pretty rich seeing (((Todd Bunzl))) wagging his finger at the audience for laughing at the midget. Hollywood has spent years conditioning audiences to laugh at all matter of violence, gore, and sociopathic behavior so the midget not being able to reach the door knob looks like intentional humor. Todd himself puts shit like the decapitated giraffe and Alan's dad dying in his movies as jokes, what a hypocrite.
Still haven't seen the original. And the sequel features 'Lady Gaga'. Enough said.
The first movie was like the Breath of the Wild of Movies - massive overhyped borefest.
I never saw the first on the basis that a Joker origin story is a fundamental misreading the character (and villain origin stories are universally evil apologia). Whatever cultural baggage it was trying to throw out there certainly never helped matters.
What kills me is quinn can be used to make a good minor story just not modren quinn. harly is a suportive role, as a result she has only limited potental but its there nonetheless. they keep trying to make a colander into a soup pot and are surprised when the broth gets on the stove. heck rather then just complain i think i will take a stab at it and im the biggest hack i know.
One plot i think is the limit but could make for a nice short movie is harly having to spring joker outta arkam with most the plot being her and jokers goons doing the prepwork and dealing with various non batman setbacks and impediments along the way, some comical others not so much.
a few nice potental subversions, harly by springing the joker wrecked a plan that required him to be in arkam or joker had already escaped and had been watching harly for his amusement at some point bonus if hes hidden in the backround randomly in scenes eating popcorn or something.
Harley only works because she was a caricature of a real person we all know.
A retarded girl who keeps dating a very abusive guy and helping him be evil until she loses all her sympathy and isn't any better than him despite being a victim. We've all met that girl, and a lot of people even got burned trying to save her.
Once she "emancipated" herself from him to be strong and independent, it stopped being relatable because that never fucking happens.
The original movie was overrated. It was watching a vulnerable guy get beat up and beat down until it reached a single point which was the only point.
Whilst being interviewed by a cruel TV host who only brought him on the show to mock him, Arthur tells a joke: “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner, with a society that abandons him and treats him like shit?” Arthur rhetorically asks. Then he answers as he shoots the cruel TV host who was holding him up for amusement. The Joker yells, “You get what you deserve!”
Of course, Arthur's self awareness itself to ask the question and answer it breaks immersion to me. It is the author speaking to us. The director might as well have walked on set with a sign. It is a valid point though. The movie paints us a picture of a vulnerable disabled white male - one of the least celebrated and protected groups in our society.
The left hated the movie because it challenged their discourse of privilege. For example Rolling Stone talked of concerns that the, "that Joker casts disaffected young white men in an overly sympathetic, verging on celebratory, light". Should we not treat vulnerable victims of abuse with sympathy?
It's difficult to see how it could have been followed though, without re-writing Fleck to be enormously less inadequate. The director had always said it was not set up for a sequel.
Well at least this is on topic.
When you make more than 5 posts a year each one can’t please everyone
The first movie was boring imo, idk why people loved it.
I had friends say it really shows how some people suffer if left without help.
But I'm not a liberal so my thought was why couldn't he just man up the entire time.
It's literally a series for liberals, all my liberal friends loved it.
Specifically because he was so severely beaten and physically abused as a child that it caused permanent brain damage. This isn't a matter of simply being a crybaby or thin-skinned, he was actually disabled. That's not a "liberal" observation, that's a "watch the fucking movie" observation.
He literally was not disabled in the movie so that is straight up bs there, he was just angry.
What made you assume he was disabled? Brain damage doesn't automatically mean you are disabled.
Just because you freak out over bullshit doesn't mean you are disabled.
Maybe if he couldn't function as a human like eat, sleep or use the restroom..
You don't think having a broken brain counts as a disability? Are you a big retarded person?
Says the guy saying "broken brain" is a disability.
You are an actual retard or you are trolling.
Either way you proved me right.
No, but clearly you are. Now go eat more lead.
"Broken brain"
🤣
L
Retard
He is physically unable to control his laughter in stressful moments, to a point where he is shown to be coughing from the pain and lack of breath by the end of it. He had a fucking card to hand out for it because it happens so often and gets him into extreme trouble (which is how he ends up shooting those guys).
That precludes him from the vast majority of sectors of society because he might physically cease to function if stressed. Which means he is more disabled than anyone with Down Syndrome and many other things we give out disability for.
Though given how retarded you seem to be, I can see why he seems super functional from your position.
No dude he just needed to man up and lift weights and fuck hotties just act like a man bro. 😎
Again liberal thinking.
I know multiple people with tourettes which IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, who can work and function normally.
I watched the movie and saw nothing other than him being a piece of shit that was holding him back.
Laughing until it's hard to breath is not that bad, happens to me as well. That is an insane reach to say that makes him unable to function in society. Again, liberal thinking is that you can't overcome your issues and find your niche.
You think he couldn't be a landscaper because he laughs a lot?
It's almost like don't have a brain...
You are probably a kid though, still in school, otherwise you are a weak man, pathetic.
So now you admit he is disabled, and not just angry. But now its just no big deal because you know a lot of people with tourettes.
Cool goalpost move my guy, at least you got to try and take a swipe at me to recover your ego.
I never admitted he was disabled idiot. you think people can't read or something?
Lying to what, cope?
L
Tourettes is a literal disability, legally defined as such. Which your own words is "Exactly" what I described him having.
Which means legally speaking, by you saying he is exactly equal to someone with tourettes, he is disabled.
You rushed to downplay his disability so fast you didn't realize what you were tacitly admitting in doing so. A classic sign of someone on the backfoot trying to move a goalpost.
I think you're just trying to semantically deny that mental disability counts as a disability at all. Physical abuse physically damaged the development of his brain. It would be akin to his harddrive not being seated properly. I know he is disabled because it's plainly written out in the scenes where he steals the casefile for his mother when he visits Arkham, and it describes the abuse that he received as a child by the man that his mother dated.
Again, liberal thinking...many people have mental issues they deal with daily and they still are not disabled.
I watched the movie and nothing about him told me he couldn't function in society if he wasn't a piece of shit.
You can assume all you want but it's not clear anywhere in the movie that he wasn't just an angry asshole with mental issues.
That’s an interesting point/observation because even what I saw in the movie was basically just I thought it was asking “we all know people can fall through the cracks, what if society was nothing but a gaping pit?” - which, of course, feeds into the “revolutionary” narratives…and the one in the movie certainly seems a lot more like the Bolshevik Revolution than, say, the American Revolution lol
I don't know know what you are talking about.
The plot of the 2019 movie Joker having marxist revolutionary messages…basically the thing you said…how many dildos to the head have you taken?
I disagree 100% with your opinion
Well I guess the answer must be over 9000
Nope, you are just reaching miles.
Unless you can demonstrate it without rambling on a tangent.
Edit: yea didn't think so...cool story though
Saying "just man up" is a glaring neon sign that someone has no idea what mental illness is like.
Says who? You? 🤣
I was unfortunately cursed with an add trailer of the upcomming Joker movie. It looked and sounded like boring shit.
Like some university project movie.
Didn't know this movie happened. Only just saw the advertising for it around town over the weekend. The whole "the world is a stage" is pretty suss to me.
Feels like they're just using the joker as an icon to push the usual modern day brainwashing unrelated to batman/joker lore
-- again I'm just basing this on the ad posters I've just seen around town
Isn't destroying his own franchise right when it's most popular something the Joker would do?
But joker is not doing it, the writers are.
No, that's what people who write memes about the Joker think.
He isn't "lol so random, always do the opposite thing CHAOS" like post Ledger people think. He creates incredibly complex plans towards goals and is shown to regularly have a stable set of ideas and principles.
Heck his crossover with Carnage (a character meant to embody literal random chaos) had the two of them split because he hated Carnage's inability to be productive and accomplish tasks, while Carnage mocked him for being far too orderly.
Tbf Ledger's Joker still did this with the bank heist which had both elimination of the heisters as part of the design and then simply setting fire to half the money afterwards, money which was specifically mentioned to be the non-traceable kind as he went out of his way to leave that behind. The character just gets further memed because of Ledger's suicide and normies own retarded takes and Youtuber blogs which are retarded and wrong anyway.
Most people remember the "idea" of Ledger's Joker but forget the actual reality of what he did, and the fact that all his "philosophy" was proven to be actually false by the movie itself. Including when he tried to force it in a huff after it failed to materialize.
But that's not edgy and cool enough, so everyone just jerks off over "chaos lul" the same way they treated the guy from Jurassic Park saying "chaos theory" as super smart.