The Crane Pool Forum

FINALLY caught this movie. Or, rather, I caught the version of this movie with this particular title, since it, well, kinda felt like I'd seen this movie before.

What'd you think? Funny ha-ha? Funny observant and resonant? Or funny like week-old-fish smells?

its not trying to be funny, so evaluating it on that basis seems odd. It's also not animated, nor a civil war drama. There's oh so many things its not. but one of the things that it IS is powerful, timely, gripping and really well made.

Just being glib-- more of a "joke"-related way to ask the "what'd you think" question without tipping my hand.

For instance, I might have poisoned the well had I asked, "What other movies traversed the same plot beats and/or thematic ground as this stylish but ultimately empty pastiche, but did so first, and far more meaningfully*," or "Was Joaquin Phoenix the best actor in a film this year, or did he just do the MOST acting in a film this year?"

*For my money: TAXI DRIVER (of which this is basically the airplane-plastic-cup version of the same basic cocktail recipe), KING OF COMEDY, YOU WERE NEVER REALLY THERE, and BRONSON. Off the top of my head.

I'm more interested in the next two installments in the trilogy: Smoker and Midnight Toker.

FWIW, I thought that score WAS great. 120 minutes of slow, seeping aural dread.

Watched this on a plane. Heavy stuff. Seemed like it really could have been called "Rupert Pupkin: All Grown Up."

caught this one last night (HBO has it). It was. long? fine? It was better if it wasn't a Batman movie. But it hits too many tropes for a villain and really dulls the mystique of Joker. Good/Evil Bad Guy/Villain Batman/Joker. nah. too narrow. The timeline of the movie is a little choppy at times too. And then part of it isn't actually real.

I mean, it was a well made movie. But I didn't turn it on to see a well made movie about how a villain is made, I turned it on to watch Joker do proto-Jokery stuff and it takes mostly all movie for any of that to happen. And also why did this need to take place in the early 20th century? Joaquin Phoenix is 45. I don't know what age Joker was supposed to be but that seems about right. That means Joker, in the future when Batman is Batman, is like a 60ish year old man? That doesn't really seem to track.

Ceetar wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 3:17 pm And also why did this need to take place in the early 20th century? Joaquin Phoenix is 45. I don't know what age Joker was supposed to be but that seems about right. That means Joker, in the future when Batman is Batman, is like a 60ish year old man? That doesn't really seem to track.

Super-hero characters --and their villains-- are typically timeless, and don't age. Batman, or Superman -- or Spiderman -- are always the same age, whether portrayed in a 1940s comic strip, a 1990s comic-book style novel or a contemporary movie. Right? Okay, Spiderman wouldn't have appeared in a 1940s comic strip but I'm assuming you get my larger point. Also, I haven't seen this movie, but I read that it takes place in 1981. That's hardly early 20th century, not that it detracts from my point -- being that these super-hero stories could take place pretty much anytime in the last almost 100 years.

If these characters aged, Batman would likely be dead by now, thus putting a logical end to any contemporary-setting tellings of the Dark Knight. If they aged, Batman would've bean a card-carrying member of AARP senior citizen in the mid 60s hit TV show. Etc., etc., etc.

early 80s, i see from Google, okay, fine. although time is clearly fungible in this movie. the smoking in hospitals (and everywhere) and the Chaplin movie had me thinking it was maybe much earlier. Though clearly not a real place so they could've played with it some. (I always forget how stupid-recent it was that smoking was banned in places)

I'm not question super heroes aging, they age whenever for plot points, but specifically the referenced age difference between Batman and Joker in the movie. The movie spent a lot of time setting up different visuals and scenes it really wanted to play out, without worrying too much on whether or not it made much sense. That's where it loses me.

Ceetar wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 3:17 pm And also why did this need to take place in the early 20th century? Joaquin Phoenix is 45. I don't know what age Joker was supposed to be but that seems about right. That means Joker, in the future when Batman is Batman, is like a 60ish year old man? That doesn't really seem to track.

It is meant to mirror the IRL late 70’s-early 80’s NYC of Taxi Driver.

In regards to the age difference between Joaquin’s character and Bruce Wayne. It can be seen as one of several indicators that this is not The Joker that will be Batman’s greatest arch enemy (though this character may have inspired that Joker to come) and/or there is a point after the subway murders that everything that happens is in Arthur’s head. Sort of like Robert Pupkin’s story in The King of Comedy.

I can't wait to not see this.

stevejrogers wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 3:03 pm

Ceetar wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 3:17 pm And also why did this need to take place in the early 20th century? Joaquin Phoenix is 45. I don't know what age Joker was supposed to be but that seems about right. That means Joker, in the future when Batman is Batman, is like a 60ish year old man? That doesn't really seem to track.

It is meant to mirror the IRL late 70’s-early 80’s NYC of Taxi Driver.

In regards to the age difference between Joaquin’s character and Bruce Wayne. It can be seen as one of several indicators that this is not The Joker that will be Batman’s greatest arch enemy (though this character may have inspired that Joker to come) and/or there is a point after the subway murders that everything that happens is in Arthur’s head. Sort of like Robert Pupkin’s story in The King of Comedy.

I've never seen Taxi Driver, and yeah that's kind of my point, that it wasn't a Batman movie. They should've just called it/him something else and left out the Wayne stuff and suddenly it's a much better movie.

That it takes place in Gotham, in Batman's world, is undeniable. Hell, that they decide to shoe-horn in the Batman origin story pretty much insinuates that it's real.


Unrelated it'd be interesting to see a NEW movie/comic/hero franchise to take off from the villain standpoint. Like have a Joker movie that's less origin story and more him terrorizing Gotham in the years prior to Batman becoming Batman, in fact, he's the impetus for BECOMING Batman. As Batman emerges he's constantly criticized "stay down, don't you remember what happened to OTHER HERO" and comics being what they are, the hero would have the constant self-doubt as the big bad villain keeps reemerging. "Have I even made a difference? I can't get rid of this guy! He was the whole reason I'm here"

Ceetar wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:05 pm Unrelated it'd be interesting to see a NEW movie/comic/hero franchise to take off from the villain standpoint. Like have a Joker movie that's less origin story and more him terrorizing Gotham in the years prior to Batman becoming Batman, in fact, he's the impetus for BECOMING Batman....

The Joker had his own comic book, for a brief run in 1975-76 --- the only villain in the DC universe to be given that treatment.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 8:07 pm

Ceetar wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:05 pm Unrelated it'd be interesting to see a NEW movie/comic/hero franchise to take off from the villain standpoint. Like have a Joker movie that's less origin story and more him terrorizing Gotham in the years prior to Batman becoming Batman, in fact, he's the impetus for BECOMING Batman....

The Joker had his own comic book, for a brief run in 1975-76 --- the only villain in the DC universe to be given that treatment.

… to that point. Post-antihero '90s, everybody got their own books, provided they could be the center of something appropriately "gritty." The '90s were all about that grit. Gritty heroes, gritty antiheroes, gritty parodies. So much grit, you'd think you went to the beach and started woodworking using money you made selling kiddie-pyramid-scheme newspapers.
(Some later Joker series and mini-series were actually damn good.)

Is that Dick Giordano or Neal Adams art? Looks like one of the two.

Well, Catwoman didn't get her own title for the grit, but for the zexx.

Well, grit, too. Zexx, then grit.

This is the first one I remember:



The series didn't last very long. It started out as Dr. Doom and Sub-Mariner, but I think later Namor was replaced with the Red Skull.

Lorcan and I really liked it and happy to have seen it in a movie theater