Joker- Best Film

Joker just won best film at the Venice film festival.

Happy dances


I’m surprised there was no thread about this


joins in on the happy dance


:exploding_head: :clap::clown_face::clap:


Just read an article, next stop for Joker is the Toronto International Film Festival! DC making history y’all! :bat:


This is how it ends…

What ends

Good superhero movies.

What’s that supposed to mean??

1 Like

That superhero movies are supposed to be in general fun, escapist, nonsense. If I want deep and meaningful I go read Chekhov or Ibsen.

Heroes are the goof guys and girls, villains are the bad guys and girls. It’s really pretty simple.

The big danger is to the Joker himself. We do not need a deeply scared and tragic figure. We need a complete sociopath who if you met him on the street might give you $1000 or might kill you. He’ll probably kill you, but you can never be sure. The Joker actually having an origin is just a bad idea. It was when the killing joke came out and it’s still true today.


Thank you for doing my explaining for me.

1 Like

I fully agree. While I think the movie will probably be good overall, seeing so many reviewers call the Joker “sympathetic” or an “anti-hero” kinda appalls me.


@Desade I have to disagree, I for one usually speak out against those who feel the need to condemn more light hearted superhero movies but superheroes can be all across the board. They are characters that can be interpreted in many different ways and should be. Superhero movies don’t have to all my light hearted flicks, neither do they all have to be dark and gritty. A multitude of stories can and should be told with these characters. Confining the characters to strictly light hearted adventures is just wrong to me.
Now on the note of a joker origin, as this has been established as an elseworlds one off, I see nothing wrong with. Sure the main joker has the intrigue thing to him but this isn’t a universe movie, this is just a movie about his becomings. I can understand why you wouldn’t want an origin but that to me just comes down to preference.
Also, I don’t believe sympathy and condoning are necessarily attached, you can have sympathy and still feel the action was wrong. The movie would probably show that to the audience. Plus, we’ve had many tragic villain origins on screen yet still accepted them as villains, I don’t see why this would be any different


A few things to note:

  1. This is going to be a very loose adaptation of the character. I’m mostly excited to see it because it looks like it’s going to be a good film, regardless of whether it’s true to comics.
  2. Comic book characters are and always have been celebrated by their adaptability. The Joker has been around for 80 years now, so he’s been through many iterations, all of which have added to the character’s deep history, and none of which have been diminishing of the character.
  3. When I go and see this movie, I am basically not going to think of this as the literal Joker character, rather, I’ll see it as a character that was inspired by the comic Joker. The Joker central gimmick of the Joker we know and love is his relationship with Batman. Without Batman, there is no Joker. Whatever clown we see in this new movie will not be THE Joker in my eyes, and that’s totally fine with me. For all intents and purposes, I’m thinking of it as an homage to the comic book Joker we know.

I agree with DeSade-acolyte.

Joker is a scum bag. He murders people for laughs. He tries to corrupt and abuse everyone. He’s dropped buildings on children for laughs. Glorifying/romanticizing him as a misunderstood hero is annoying. He’s charismatic so people want to make him sympathetic. He’s not.

Just my prediction

I think Zazie Beets’ character will play the role you guys I think you’re alluding to. I’m guessing at first Joker’s motives will be strictly revenge but as he goes down the rabbit hole she will check him and convey the audience’s same notion that he is wrong and is on his way to becoming a monster, but he’d ignore this and continue anyway hence fully becoming a villain and causing the audience to lose the sympathy they once developed for the character.


There’s, comics fans know it’s an elseworld, I’m not so sure the general theater going public will.

Even if Joker willingly jumps head first down the rabbit hole to pure villainy, there will always remain a germ of compassion for him. “Yes he went totally evil, but if it hadn’t been for that one bad day, or so-and-so hadn’t died he wouldn’t have gone their in the first place, poor man. If f X hadn’t happened he would never be that way.” It gives him and the audience perfect cop out for his behavior.

As opposed to “this dude is messed up, straight up evil and he enjoys it. Revels in it.”

The former plants the seed that no matter how bleeped up the Joker is, he is still redeemable. That diminishes the Joker. It diminishes his true evil nature.

Is it a great character study and a great character for an actor to play, and a great premise for a stand-alone, elseworld? Sure. Does it do the Joker as a character benefit? Absolutely not.


I understand your concern about what the general populous thinks about the character vs what comic book fans think about the character. Honestly though, it just doesn’t matter to me. The film’s already coming out, there’s nothing to stop that, and it looks like it’s going to be phenomenal, so I’m not going to let my own personal preconceptions of the Joker’s character get in the way of my enjoyment of the movie.

I think we’re probably saying the same thing here, I just thought I’d weigh in on my take.


I agree with @TheLegndKillerX and @YoYoFroYo earlier post. Here’s an interview from the Los Angeles Times, by Josh Rottenberg
Staff Writer (interviewed Todd Phillips before the Venice win):

“It really came from this idea: What if you just did a comic-book movie differently?” he explained. “We all grew up on these character studies, and they’re few and far between nowadays. So it was like, ‘Let’s do a deep dive on one of these guys in a real way.’ No one is going to fly in it. No buildings are going to collapse. It’s just going to be on the ground, so to speak.”
“That’s the fun thing about these characters. In a way, comic books are our Shakespeare, and just like there are many versions of Hamlet and Macbeth, they’ve done four or five versions of the Joker in the last 25 or 30 years. So why not do another one that’s wildly different?”

I’m down for something different. Instead of the same repetitive junk. I don’t think this movie will diminish the Joker. It’s a different version and it’s so cool that you can do this with DC characters. Todd and his ppl already said (can’t find the quote) that Comic book fans are not gonna like this movie.
Now, does it glamorize and give sympathy to the Joker? I don’t know. I do know it’s creating healthy dialogue about film/character studies and mental illness.

So, another interesting quote from the interview:

“At one point during the development of “Joker,” he proposed to Warner Bros. executives that they create a separate offshoot label called DC Black as a kind of laboratory for what he calls “independent-minded films about these characters.” (“They’re like, ‘Calm down with the label — how about you do one movie?’ ” Phillips said with a dry laugh.)”

Not sure when that conversation happened but is this how we got DC Black Label prints? Someone from DC was in that meeting too. Also, I have a feeling we’re gonna get more “DC Black” films! Y’all know the Execs are rethinking that proposal now after the Venice win. :bat:



Comics characters can benefit from movies. Prime example is MCU. Iron Man, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Captain America are more popular than Superman. A talking raccoon and a tree(!!!), who would have thunk. We are living in a world where Avengers is more popular than the Justice League and X-Men because of their movies.