Joker 'JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX' (Phillips and Phoenix return for the sequel) General News & Discussion Thread

Where do you all think the budget is going on this movie? The first one was only like $60 million, and this is $200 million.
 
routhman said:
Where do you all think the budget is going on this movie? The first one was only like $60 million, and this is $200 million.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it took a pay hike to get Phoenix to agree to a sequel, and I'm sure Gaga wasn't cheap. And if there are big song and dance numbers with a lot of performers and sets that would obviously cost more. I get the feeling the whole thing is 'bigger'. Not sure about anything else.
 
Milk Tray Guy said:
I'm guessing it took a pay hike to get Phoenix to agree to a sequel, and I'm sure Gaga wasn't cheap. And if there are big song and dance numbers with a lot of performers and sets that would obviously cost more. I get the feeling the whole thing is 'bigger'. Not sure about anything else.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m curious about what Phoenix is going to take in. Gaga is getting $12 million per Wikipedia.
 
Phillips, Phoenix and Gaga all probably got enormous contracts for this.
 
Impressive numbers in terms of engagement, so far:



And that's from 3 days ago. It went 30m less than a week. Crazy stuff, indeed.
 
Rod said:
Impressive numbers in terms of engagement, so far:



And that's from 3 days ago. It went 30m less than a week. Crazy stuff, indeed.
Click to expand...

Surpassed what the trailer of Deadpool & Wolverine did in 3 months in less than a week
 
Assuming that Lily Adler's gif avatar is Gaga's prime, fully-formed look as Harley Quinn, what do people here make of it as a comparison to the iconic look that Margot Robbie's version had in the first Suicide Squad movie?
 
Captain Tired said:
Assuming that Lily Adler's gif avatar is Gaga's prime, fully-formed look as Harley Quinn, what do people here make of it as a comparison to the iconic look that Margot Robbie's version had in the first Suicide Squad movie?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's her "fully formed". Like, I don't think that's her final look
lady-gaga-as-harley-quinn.jpg
 
Apologies in advance for my contrarian tendencies.

I like the cinematography, I love the design of Joaquin's Joker from the first movie, I like that they're consistent with the whole "70s lounge singer" vibes that this Joker gave off in the first movie appearance-wise, I commend them for coming up with a concept that's pretty much completely out of the box and yet still makes sense for the character, and I'm sure the score will be great.

But I'm just.....not feeling this lame-a$$ delusional, bumbling loser of a Joker at all anymore. And no, it's not "shiny new toy syndrome" although Barry Keoghan's version seems mighty appealing since on paper he's already a much better interpretation from the little we have to go off of. I don't care to see a Joker that's basically the manifestation of a dozen decade-old "SOCIETYYYY" memes spawned from a bunch of losers who misinterpreted Heath Ledger's Joker.

Not to mention how derivative the first one was in retrospect and how sorta derivative Joaquin's performance feels once you watch The Master.

I dunno, I'll watch it but the praise I keep seeing for Joaquin as the "best Joker ever", "definitive Joker", etc just make me roll my eyes. Kinda feels like they're only saying that because he reminds them vaguely of Heath Ledger :funny:. If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see how this compares to The Batman Part II almost exactly a couple years from then.
 
Last edited:
@AndyTrevino I don’t think he’s the definitive Joker for a couple reasons. First, we’re not really supposed to know the histories of certain villains — characters like Anton Chigurh, Hannibal Lector, and the Joker. It saps the character of mystery, and mystery is spooky. It also elicits empathy, and a good villain ought to be beyond that for the audience. Second, at least at this stage, he hasn’t done enough classically Joker-esque actions to feel completely true to the character. But these points could be addressed in the subsequent film(s).

In the first movie, at least, this telling of the story is a lot more sad than scary, both for what Arthur’s character experiences and for how it reminds us of how badly our society can fail the most vulnerable people. It’s an interesting elseworlds adaptation. But I don’t expect that this will become a definitive part of the Joker’s lore after this series concludes.
 
I haven't seen anyone ever call Phoenix the best or most definitive Joker? I'm guessing it's a minority opinion that you shouldn't take seriously. That being said, these movies are pretty much an Elseworlds take on the character and nothing else.
 
Is that Joker really considered as definitive? I've never seen such claims, or very, very marginally.
Seems to me like the consensus is that Phillips and Phoenix are just doing their thing and that it's clear we're dealing with "Arthur" more than "The Joker".
I mean, does anyone really expect this character to end up like the classic "Clown Prince of Crime" and face off against Batman?
One might ask why use the Joker brand if the story is so different, but that's also what made Elseworld.

Personally, I'm fine with it, as I don't care much for comic book dogma when it comes to adapting them for the big screen (as long as the essence is still there).

EDIT: Sorry, I'm parroting the last posts...
 
I can see why some might say this is their definitive Joker...I don't agree but their opinions aren't invalid. I mean it isn't like any version from the comics is definitive everyone has their fave.
 
J.Drangal said:
Is that Joker really considered as definitive? I've never seen such claims, or very, very marginally.
Seems to me like the consensus is that Phillips and Phoenix are just doing their thing and that it's clear we're dealing with "Arthur" more than "The Joker".
I mean, does anyone really expect this character to end up like the classic "Clown Prince of Crime" and face off against Batman?
One might ask why use the Joker brand if the story is so different, but that's also what made Elseworld.

Personally, I'm fine with it, as I don't care much for comic book dogma when it comes to adapting them for the big screen (as long as the essence is still there).

EDIT: Sorry, I'm parroting the last posts...
Click to expand...
The GA certainly seems to deem him worthy of such a title. It's pretty much all I've seen everywhere for the past few years, even when I was a fan it made me roll my eyes. And you wouldn't believe the mental gymnastics I've seen folks use to try and rationalize him becoming a more "classic" Joker just because they like him THAT much.
 
Arachnerd said:
Points for excluding Letoker. But also points reducted for not including the far underrated Cameron Monaghan in the Gotham show. :pensive:
Click to expand...
My admittedly quite mean-spirited take is that you can tell that he's a little TOO much of a fan. His performances feel very hollow to me, like he got too caught up in the fact that he got to play The Joker instead of....just playing The Joker, if I'm making any sense at all??
 
Ehhh. I feel he played the part well enough, miles better than Jared Leto. Hence why I said he's underrated since outside of the Gotham fandom, Batman fans don't really like his takes on the character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MagnarTheGreat
The Force Awakens The Episode VII Story Rumor and News Thread (NO DISCUSSION)
Replies
19
Views
22K
rashad
rashad
Kane52630
97th Annual Academy Awards
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
blueharvest
blueharvest

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 4 (members: 1, guests: 3)

    Staff online

    Members online

    ... and 5 more.
    Total: 1,462 (members: 55, guests: 1,407)

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    200,566
    Messages
    21,762,090
    Members
    45,597
    Latest member
    iamjonahlobe

    Share this page

    Back
    Top
    monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"