Is "Oscar bait" a new way to criticize something without actually really having any idea of what one is criticizing? Feels like a blanket term for "I can't elaborate on criticism with my own words, so I'll just throw this random generic term to cover all bases".
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
JOKER - Teaser Trailer
- Thread starter Gravity Insanity
- Start date
Yeah, I don't understand the term at all. "The movie is trying to be good".
Not at all. Backstories are usually a great way to understanding a character's motives or why they are the way that they are. Some movies here and there aren't needed, but a stand-alone artistic, dark thriller about the Joker starring one of the finest methodical actors ever? Count me in! Besides, the Joker didn't just magically appear as an evil adult. He became that way through a shitty life. People want to see that and I can tell you it sure as hell doesn't ruin the character to see him from a different perspective.
Backstories there from the start. Backstories made for carachters that did not have a defined one are rubbish.
And we have many many example.
Tho whole point of the Joker is exactly that or at least was. There is no reason, he is pure evil.
In the world there are people like this, not every bad perpetrator has a sad backstory. Some are just born like that and make those choices driven by themselves only. This is the Joker.
The "Dark Knight" sentence " some men just want to see the world burn" was not there randomly. That's the joker.
An evil so evil you cannot have empathy , structure or reason
I hate that they're giving him an origin here instead of just copying what they did in Dark Knight. There's only ever been one interpretation of the Joker through all of the comics and they need to stick with that. It's the reason that Alan Moore's The Killing Joke is widely considered trash by comic book fans. Don't even get me started on the '89 Batman film. When I went to go see it as a kid with my dad, as soon as I realized they were giving Joker a backstory I demanded that my father and I leave the theatre and ask for a refund.
Considered trash? I have only ever heard nothing but fantastic things about it (I quite enjoy it myself) from others and just now looking at all of the graphic novel reviews all over different websites, it's at a 4.5/5 from thousands of reviews. That doesn't scream "trash" to me.
Lol Era
Someone admits to making a smug comment
"BAN HIM!!!!!"
The comment was insufferable but come on, let's chill
Damn. People like you should stay away from movies then.
Well, I believe that's precisely the idea. I mean, we don't know if he dies or not, frankly at this point it doesn't matter, but a good film will want you to get attached to a character you love so their death is all the more tragic. I believe the director stated that this is a tragedy, and Joaquin has stated multiple times he doesn't want any franchise deals, so I don't reckon we're getting this Joker again.
What I don't understand though is the need to be attached to a character for several films. LIke, I get it. The "canon" DCEU Joker sucks, as does a lot of that canon, but so what? I'd rather DC make one-off character study movies like this and TDK than haplessly connect their inane movies to each other. We don't need epic sagas, Marvel has that covered, DC should focus on making singular films like this that are strong on their own.
Whether this performance is great or not I don't think anyone wants any more Leto as the Joker LOL
I just don't like the idea of constantly switching actors for the same role. But it's really just a personal preference of mine.
Last edited:
I mean, does it really matter? Would The Dark Knight have been worse if it was a standalone release, the only Nolan Batman film? Is it worse than it would have been if Heath Ledger had shown up in Rises? We never see that Joker again either, he might as well have died at the end of TDK.
The fact that Joaquin won't be facing off against the assembled Justice League in five years after being featured in four more DC movies shouldn't matter, as long as this movie itself is good.
I get that, but would understand it more if this movie was intended to take place in the same universe as the DCEU. It's its own thing, though. Batman's actor is always changing when a new story is told, and this is by and large a new story about a new Joker that likely will never be replicated.
We don't see him again because Ledger passed away. Joker was supposed to be in Rises but out of respect for Ledger they refused to recast Joker with a different actor, and I honestly feel they made the correct choice.
I understand that, but does that make The Dark Knight worth less?
I like that you brought up this point. The Nolan trilogy as a whole is quite good; Begins is great, TDK is unprecedented and TDKR is... alright. However, TDK is always the go-to for a rewatch because it's a damn good movie. It doesn't need to be connected to Begins or Rises to be good, and in fact would've suffered if they decided to shove weird cameos into it in order to foster a shared "universe."
The industry needs movies like Logan, Joker, and Spider-Verse. CBMs that are films first and adaptations second. I don't care much for super heroes these days, so I'm likely only going to see one-off movies as it is.
Worth less? The only thing I liked about TDK was Ledgers performance as the Joker.
And was this individual representation of the Joker worth less than it would have been if Heath Ledger hadn't died, but had shown up in six sequels and a Justice League movie?
Rewatched it and I'm feeling the vibe a bit more.
This goes well past the realism Nolan began with...Begins.
Is this the first time something like this has been attempted with a property like this, that isn't fan made?
Didn't know Scorsese was attached to it, that's pretty crazy. If this does well which I assume it will, I could see this uber gritty and realistic take becoming a trend, for better or worse.
This goes well past the realism Nolan began with...Begins.
Is this the first time something like this has been attempted with a property like this, that isn't fan made?
Didn't know Scorsese was attached to it, that's pretty crazy. If this does well which I assume it will, I could see this uber gritty and realistic take becoming a trend, for better or worse.
I don't think it'll become a trend in the sense of there beings tons of movies replicating it, like DC are trying to do with Marvel, but I think that Logan and Deadpool proved that adults are willing to pay for R-rated comic book movies, so there simply will be more CBMs geared towards that audience. Joker, if anything, is following that trend.
OP
OP
Yikes... talk about verbal gymnastics.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.
I forgot about Logan, but this still takes it a step further than that.
Logan wasn't as grounded as this appears to be.
I went and found the source for IMDB's listing since IMDB is about as reliable as 4chan for unreleased content.
https://comicbook.com/dc/2018/10/23/joker-bruce-wayne-cast-dante-pereira-olson/
Well that's interesting. So the guy playing Joker is 44 and Bruce is 10/11.
Bruce generally becomes Batman on average around 25ish, so if this Bruce followed the trend then Joker would be 58 when they finally clashed.
It's different but I could still imagine it in this universe. I never really liked the interpretations of the Joker that ended up getting too physical with Batman. I always viewed him more as a manipulator than a fighter, and he doesn't need to match Batman physically to do that. And Batman still won't kill him. Same stalemate as usual.
For sure. Batman as a series though always has been able to be more grounded than practically every other super hero franchise though considering how many characters in it are simply just human beings.
I don't think we'll see a "grounded" Wolverine or Spider-Man. They're just too, erm, "super" to do it right. Joker is a crazy clown in make-up... but that story can be told in so many different ways that it's possible to make it suitable for kids and adult, or make it as grounded or silly as they want.
I usually really dislike the joker, but this actually has me interested. Seeing gotham (?) slowly break him down and have him go insane slowly seems like an interesting character film.
Plus im always in for zazie
Plus im always in for zazie
You said that you don't prefer to get invested in a portrayal of a character if they're just going to switch out the actor the next time, or if they're not going to appear in a sequel (i.e., if they're killed). Heath Ledger appeared one time as the Joker, and his specific version of the Joker didn't appear again, and I was just trying to point out that the fact that he didn't re-appear later did not lessen the quality or impact or enjoyability of his one performance.
I'm certainly not trying to use any verbal gymnastics, I've been trying to explain the same thing in the same way in each post I've made.
"I understand that, but does that make The Dark Knight worth less?"
That is a direct quote from you talking about the actual movie, not a specific performance.
You didn't like my answer so now you're framing the discussion differently just to get me to say the answer you want to hear.
I was speaking initially on the assumption that his performance was an integral part in making that movie as good as it was. At that point, I didn't know that you didn't care for the movie beyond Ledger's performance. So I slightly adjusted the focus of my question from the movie itself to the performance itself, since that is what you liked about it.
The point remains the same. The movie overall, the performance itself, or whatever, was not lessened by the fact that Heath Ledger did not appear in subsequent movies as The Joker.
I'm not trying to get any kind of answer in particular, I'm trying to discuss your mindset. I didn't realize that you didn't like TDK, so I refined my point in order to focus the question on the thing you did like. The question remains the same exact question, just with a different specific subject.
You seem to be approaching this as if we're in some kind of anger-fueled raging debate or something, and at least from my end, that's not the case at all. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. If you said "right, I didn't like The Dark Knight partly because Ledger's Joker was a one-off," I would happily accept that. It would actually be consistent with what you initially said.
Last edited:
That's not even what that tweet said or even implied. Just that it can easily appeal to that group.
