Joker origin Movie

I've even seen one theory saying that he and his mother are the same person - and that he has to kill her off to truly become Joker.

That was my off forum reaction.

I also love that I asked for names of the "hotbed" of "young" talent that Hollywood has to offer and the answer I get is 40 year old Aaron Paul - and no one else.

Hotbed.

__________________

Should've gone with Sean Connery

Tommy Wiseau could've done breakout things with this role!

See, now I'm wondering what James Franco would do with the role

Yeah Aaron Paul is not the right choice now that I think about it more, totally right. It's just that the movie feels off cause by the time Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, this Joker will probably be in his 60s, so it feels like a pointless origin story, that won't go anywhere, sequel wise.

Saw it today. I thought it was phenomenal. Phoenix was out of this world good. Going stay with me for awhile. Dark and twisted as a movie about the Joker should be. Funny reading through the beginning of this thread, it was all doom and gloom . I was one of them a bout a month or two ago. Gladly can admit when I am wrong. Thought a Joker origin was a bad idea, Joker is cool because his origin was ambiguous. But I suppose that is just my bias for how much I loved Nolan's take on Joker. Felt like I actually watched art instead of something made for China.

And Phillips. Wow where the hell did that come from? He has made a couple of my favorite comedies, and some other so-so movies. Didn't see him capable of something like this. Great job.

My feelings about a sequel is they should probably leave it alone. It would be really damn cool to see Batman go up against Phoenix's Joker but it sounds like the new Batman movie is doing it's own thing. I think injecting Phoenix's Joker into someone else's Batman plans would be a bad idea. Although Joaquin was interviewed by Peter Travers and said he has flirted with Phillips about if they can do anything else with the character...doesn't mean they are going do it but he isn't totally against it.

As far as Ledger vs Phoenix. I think the debate is sort of unfair to have. Both Jokers served a different purpose and both where amazing. Ledger's a supporting role and far more charismatic. Where Joaquin's was a protagonist and far more haunting to me. Joaquin's is far darker and given time to flesh out all the details of the character. Ledger's was far more flashy and brief which he played to his advantage. Have to let Phoenix's performance marinate some more as well. They both brought it though and gave us iconic performances. Cheers to both.

Also. Joaquin should win and Oscar but he won't. His past history with the academy and the nature of this movie in this climate....he doesn't stand a chance. I'd consider it a win if he got nominated but he doesn't stand a chance to win unfortunately. It's massively frustrating. It would be insane if he won because it's basically saying he was so good we ignored all the politic BS.

__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)

Phillips has said that there is no guarantee that Phoenix joker is Ledger's joker. So by that we could take it that in the Dark Knight we're seeing a "copycat" type joker, which presumably is a devoted follower of Fleck or something similar.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter as it's just a film. We could just as easily pretend that Fleck is 23 years old and had a really hard paper round.

What politic BS, you mean not giving an Oscar to a performance in a comic book movie? Well, they did it for The Dark Knight though, of course.

Probably has to do with the controversy around how its...haphazard approach to its deeper thematic meaning might radicalise dudes with Joker avatars or some such nonsense (which did not exist when The Dark Knight came out). Besides, I don't think that's going to make a difference.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

It's confusing trying to parse which cultural entries it's intelligent to blame for how people respond to them, and which are crusty and old-fashioned. Suggesting video games encourage any kind of violence is seen as hysterically ignorant and retrograde, but movies are...different? And just different now, because 20 years ago talking about the cultural effects of violent or explicit movies induced an awful lot of eye rolling and reflexive accusations of puritanism.

lol no. 1.) Joaquin has basically stated the Oscars are stupid and won't campaign 2.) They won't reward this movie because of the sentiment that it sympathizes with "incels" 3.) For these big acting/directing categories I think they desperately want a diverse winner now.

I think they welcome these comic book worthy performances now which will go in his favor actually. Brings more eyeballs to the telecast.

Well the academy is usually a sucker for movies that have to do with with gender or race issues, or historical dramas. Those are the ones most often picked.

I haven't seen the movie but I bet he does get an Oscar nom.

Hey! He has played a comic-based character and supervillain before!

And there've been so many great comic recasts (same actors to different characters): Chris Evans, Ben Affleck, Ryan Reynolds, Brandon Routh (as the Atom), Micheal Keaton (Batman / Birdman / the Vulture), etc.

How could you leave out the triple agent J.K. Simmons lol

I haven't watched the Disaster Artist or 127 hours, but I wouldn't be disappointed if he was on a shortlist to feature in the 3rd installment of Reeves' trilogy

Twenty, thirty years to come you'll watch a given film because he won an Oscar that year? (is really a question, not an affirmation). Some of my favorite films of all time didn't won an Oscar, they were some, nominated and lost, I can think of Taxi Driver nominated to four categories and lost in all, and is now considered one, or the best movie of all time by some/many. I believe people are looking more closely at the winners of certain festivals and not just the political Oscars, mainly because of them being political, because, is not honest, is not fair and is against liberty. Joaquin Phoenix is like Marlon Brando, when they see the dirty politics behind everything and they have a spine they obviously dislike it. The importance I give to the Oscar is the hype they have, when I see a film that has originality and creativity, I like to see the author highly rewarded, the last film I can think was Mandy. But honestly, hypothetically, if a film I highly enjoy, like Mandy had won an Oscar I would not be happy about it, because is the reward of an industry I dislike, I deeply dislike how they think and what they want, I hate that there rotten morals can judge a film, a actor or anything, and if they like something I like, I get suspicious.

I do too....but I'd sh*t a brick if they actually gave him the trophy.

Are the Oscars politics really that dirty though? I never thought of them as dirty, just biased in their taste. But biased doesn't equal dirty, does it?

Generally, I wouldn't say bias = dirty; however, bias can influence the steps one may take to limit access for those one is biased against. That effort can range from benign to dirty. So. Eh?