Tell me what you guys think:
I really don't think that the "his past needs to be a mystery" thing is as big a deal as people think it is. Jack Nicholson's Joker origin was made very clear in Batman (1989) and his Joker was still great, possibly the 2nd best behind Heath Ledger. Jeremiah Valeska's origin on Gotham is clear, and he's a fan favorite. I really don't think knowing his origin in this movie will take anything away from the character.
"If i'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice." This version of the Joker's origin isn't going to be the final knot that ties everything together for the character. There even points that show that Heath Ledgers Joker was making up parts of his past as well. When he's speaking to Gambol he tells him that his Father was an abusive fiend and gave him the scars, but when hes threatening Rachael at Bruce's Party for Harvey he tells her a completely different story. He says that his wife was caught deep with loan sharks and couldn't pay up so they carve up her face. He wants her to feel better so he cuts up his own. In Tim Burton's Batman he wanted to write the Joker a bit different so he had Jack kill Bruce's Parents in the movie. In Gotham there were two possibilities of the Joker in the show, one being Jeremiah and the other Jerome. But both characters in the show both embody how the joker is in the comic, Jeremiah has his crazy and fun psychopathic personality, while Jerome has his intellect and cold hateful nature. Joker is an idea but it shouldn't matter how his origin story is given for the story. Its an adaptation.
@doom_phd: 1. Due to its low budget, it's low risk, and the profit they get would most likely be higher than if it was high budget
2. It's a completely random movie that doesn't even fit into the continuity. If it fails, it may not effect other properties
3. It stars one of the most iconic characters of all time
Sounds like a cashgrab to me.
I find her videos to be unnecessary, as I don't care about her opinion.
I bet one of you will reply "Oh, if you don't like her, then don't watch her videos." Yes, exactly what I'm trying to say.
But the topic of the thread wasn't the video, it was "do you think joker needs a movie". Also "her" is the OP of the thread. lol
@mylittlefascist: Then I said exactly what I needed to say. Nobody needs a movie, if you want to make a movie/video, just make it. If you're interested to watch things, then watch them. If you're not interested to watch them, then don't watch them. Saying that Joker doesn't need a movie is the same as saying the movie is not needed in general, correct? I'm saying why the concept of "it's not needed, so it shouldn't be there" is stupid.
Just for the record, I don't agree with what I said. It's meant to be ironic. I'm all support for comic book videos on YouTube. It's the same like controversy in 2013 or so when people were mad that Pewdiepie was getting big, saying his videos are unnecessary, stupid. THEN DON'T WATCH HIS VIDEOS. That's stupid, correct? If you think what I said was stupid and harsh, it's because it's meant to be stupid.
Also, I'm not against criticism. This is different than seeing a movie that actually interests you, but the movie ends up disappointing. That's where criticism is needed. I'm just mad because "We don't need this movie" shouldn't be a thing. It's exactly as stupid as "I don't need your YouTube channel, so this shouldn't exist" that I said earlier.
@theparadox: cashgrabs are movies that serve no other purpose that taking in money, this is a hard r rated movie meaning limited audience, from what we're can see it'll be a low action artistic character study kind of movie
Calling it a cash grab is laughable
1) it’s not a low risk, it’s high risk which is why it’s a low budget film.
2) which is why it’s not a cash grab
3) only one iconic character is in this movie.
You want to see what a cash grab is? I point you towards Antman and the Wasp. This isn’t one
I know a lot of people like the line about the Joker not knowing his origin but that's BS. It's very clear that the origin in the killing joke was his origin and it was referenced consistently after the story happened. The Joker has a real origin people and I don't believe it takes away from his character though I can see why some people do
On topic - No one needs a movie, until it's made
I don't like the sympathy for the joker that occurs with his story. I think he should have been born an evil little Psycho and gradually gotten cleverer and more evil as he found ingenious ways of getting away with more and more. I find it hard to hate him when he is the victim of terrible treatment.
When it comes to CBM properties/characters there are always risk involved regardless of budget. A "low" budget Joker movie, its certainly not low budget in terms of the average movie, but lower than a typical action blockbuster sure. But anyway, when your using a CBM character like the Joker you are risking the future of the character.
The amount of money BvS has lost for Warner Brothers are way way higher than the movie itself (which didnt loose money but just making a point). A bad movie makes people loose interest in future installments, which takes time to build up again. If the Joker movie is terrible, then Joker itself wont have the draw that he used to have (money lost) when used in future movies.
Please Log In to post.