Joker: Folie a Deux (2024) Spoiler Thread

[excel1]

It would not be difficult to create a better sequel story line for Joker than this. There were 100 different angles they could have gone to make a proper follow up. This was outright laziness. 

[Dominic Draper]

I thought this was one of the ballsiest major studio films in a while.

 

Thoroughly enjoyed it even with its flaws, and I think it will become a cult classic with critics re-appraising it in years to come.

 

There's just so much emotional anger over the film right now and by design I'd imagine. Todd has always had a nihilist mean streak in his films and this is no different.

[Dominic Draper]

On 10/4/2024 at 6:41 PM, Unfitclock said:

The scene with Gary in the courtroom was a great scene and that’s what could have broke him not that 

This was my favorite scene of the film I think. I didn't expect it. Worked so well for me.

[Mad Max007]

I feel bad for the supporting cast for this, they did so much in such short time given to them and got paid pennies. I was rewatching some clips from the first and that movie falls off without De Niro and Shea Whigham too.

[SnokesLegs]

Why do I feel like the people who think that Arthur’s killer is the “real” Joker are the same types of people who felt let down that The Rise of Skywalker didn’t mention the broom boy…

 

These two Joker films are completely unconnected to anything else DC related aside from a few character name mentions. They aren’t meant to be prequels to anything else. That’s it, it’s done.

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, SnokesLegs said:

Why do I feel like the people who think that Arthur’s killer is the “real” Joker are the same types of people who felt let down that The Rise of Skywalker didn’t mention the broom boy…

 

These two Joker films are completely unconnected to anything else DC related aside from a few character name mentions. They aren’t meant to be prequels to anything else. That’s it, it’s done.

i agree but the text of the film plays with the opposite. i think both films feel compelled to nod towards continuing the story/franchise in a way that doesn’t fit with film’s real interests. 

 

And the Lord sends Gabriel to take me a way,
Wanna fine young son to take my place.
I’ll leave a son in my heaven on earth with the Lord’s good grace.
With a fine young son to take my place
I’ll leave a son in my heaven on earth with the Lord’s good grace.

 

intercutting that song with this dude says that this is “son of joker” bit what does that mean? It feels too specific to this person who is seen around in the film without interiority. I think its just a weak execution of a strong idea

Edited Monday at 11:32 AM by PlatnumRoyce

[PlatnumRoyce]

I think the rape scene is incredibly important to the story phillips wanted to tell in a way thats well beyond the metacommentary move its being read as.

 

prison rape jokes are just a great illustration of the sort of antisocial just writing off of troubled people these Joker films are genuinely interested in (even if we debate where it goes from there) and such jokes/actions shows the breakdown of legal processes. 
 

fleck’s persona (described in court as a defensive reaction to childhood abuse), having that shell brutally violated after flexing its freedom basically breaks him and right after that the other rare character whose basically a friend to arthur/joker gets murdered trying to stand up for him. 
 

gary pebbles feeling small and powerless is contrasted with gleeson who has a response after being threatened by Arthur (finger gun callback) and insulted in court. That power comes from the abuse of his position of authority. 
 

all of this stuff was unpleasant but felt in keeping with joker1. 

Edited Monday at 06:13 PM by PlatnumRoyce

[Firepower]

I think the fact that plot of the movie precisely mirrors reception of the movie itself (strongly disappointed fans reject their idol because he rejects them and he wasn't what they expected him to be, killing him in anger) makes it kinda unique and fascinating, I can't think of anything like that at least done with such a big budget.

 

I can see it getting some sort of reaprisal in a decade or two, after all the dust settles and hate subsides, and people will take a fresh look at it. But I wish Phillips recut it because I feel like cutting the most unnecessary musical numbers and bringing back some deleted scenes could've turned it into a stronger movie.

Edited Monday at 12:48 PM by Firepower

[filmlover]

3 hours ago, SnokesLegs said:

Why do I feel like the people who think that Arthur’s killer is the “real” Joker are the same types of people who felt let down that The Rise of Skywalker didn’t mention the broom boy…

 

These two Joker films are completely unconnected to anything else DC related aside from a few character name mentions. They aren’t meant to be prequels to anything else. That’s it, it’s done.

I know there's been theories going around that the guy at the end is Heath Ledger's Joker due to the "do you know how I got these scars?" bit but I didn't get that impression at all due to the obvious timeline differences (these movies take place in the 80s while The Dark Knight is obviously set in the '07-'08 present when it was made and this dude would be in his 50s by then instead of 28 like Ledger was during filming). To me it just came off as a lame attempt at sending the audience out on an "ohhhhhh...." moment while assuring that Arthur Fleck/Phoenix wont be involved in other movies set in this universe if they made them (obviously, following the horrific reception and box office performance to this, no one will be touching this version of Gotham ever again).

[SnokesLegs]

50 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I know there's been theories going around that the guy at the end is Heath Ledger's Joker due to the "do you know how I got these scars?" bit but I didn't get that impression at all due to the obvious timeline differences (these movies take place in the 80s while The Dark Knight is obviously set in the '07-'08 present when it was made and this dude would be in his 50s by then instead of 28 like Ledger was during filming). To me it just came off as a lame attempt at sending the audience out on an "ohhhhhh...." moment while assuring that Arthur Fleck/Phoenix wont be involved in other movies set in this universe if they made them (obviously, following the horrific reception and box office performance to this, no one will be touching this version of Gotham ever again).

Yeah I just didn’t get the “ohhhhh HE’S the REAL Joker” that some people are somehow reading into it. To me, the killer was clearly just a pissed off fan who didn’t like that his idol had rejected an ideology that they personally identified with, so they killed him out of spite. As Firepower says above, it literally mirrors the fan reaction, and I can’t help but feel like Phillips was aiming for that as a critique of how some fans took the wrong message from the original (it could also be seen as being relevant to how the fans of a certain political personality worship him like a deity too, and how dangerous that can be…but we’ll not get into that!). I just think that Phillips didn’t expect this message to be so resoundingly disliked.

 

Not defending the film here exactly because after ruminating on it, while I didn’t hate it, it IS a mess and these ideas don’t seem fleshed out enough to properly land, but I get what he was going for even if the execution is what lets it down.

Edited Monday at 01:57 PM by SnokesLegs

[poweranimals]

36 minutes ago, SnokesLegs said:

Yeah I just didn’t get the “ohhhhh HE’S the REAL Joker” that some people are somehow reading into it. To me, the killer was clearly just a pissed off fan who didn’t like that his idol had rejected an ideology that they personally identified with, so they killed him out of spite. As Firepower says above, it literally mirrors the fan reaction, and I can’t help but feel like Phillips was aiming for that as a critique of how some fans took the wrong message from the original (it could also be seen as being relevant to how the fans of a certain political personality worship him like a deity too, and how dangerous that can be…but we’ll not get into that!). I just think that Phillips didn’t expect this message to be so resoundingly disliked.

If that was the intention, then I think that somehow makes it even worse.

[wildphantom]

4 hours ago, filmlover said:

I know there's been theories going around that the guy at the end is Heath Ledger's Joker due to the "do you know how I got these scars?" bit but I didn't get that impression at all due to the obvious timeline differences (these movies take place in the 80s while The Dark Knight is obviously set in the '07-'08 present when it was made and this dude would be in his 50s by then instead of 28 like Ledger was during filming). To me it just came off as a lame attempt at sending the audience out on an "ohhhhhh...." moment while assuring that Arthur Fleck/Phoenix wont be involved in other movies set in this universe if they made them (obviously, following the horrific reception and box office performance to this, no one will be touching this version of Gotham ever again).

those theorising a Ledger connection simply underline there are a lot of ‘fans’ that just did not get what Todd Phillips intended these films to be.  Honestly, it boggles the mind that they’re talking about Batman connections even after Folie à Deux. 

[fmpro]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:49 AM, filmlover said:

 

Seriously.

 

What the actual fuck even WAS this?

 

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this is among the most poorly assembled movies I can ever recall seeing. This completely unnecessary sequel to its obviously one-off predecessor struggles throughout to justify why it exists beyond the obvious (the first movie made a billion dollars and the increased salaries were too good to turn down), and what they deliver is this disastrous mixture of dull courtroom drama (were they trying to pay tribute to the infamous Seinfeld finale by bringing back virtually everyone from the previous movie just to recap everything that happened in it?), out of place musical numbers, and wink wink Batman references (is Harvey Dent in this for any reason other than to give those familiar with Batman/Gotham City lore something they're familiar with?) that never finds a rhythm or a consistent tone. Maybe a more talented filmmaker could pull all this off, but Todd Phillips, nearly a quarter-century after Road Trip, clearly doesn't have a movie of that level of skill in him and never will, so it all adds up to 138 slow, punishing minutes that show the signs of a project that went through hell in post given how much of the marketing materials aren't even in the final product. The whole thing reeks of a tax write-off that somehow escaped the lot of a studio that's become notorious in recent years for treating numerous finished projects as such.

 

It's really astounding how much this movie and the first one feel like they were made by completely different people behind the camera even though the creative teams were virtually the same. I was no super fan of the first Joker, but at least you could tell that Phillips was actually attempting to make a statement with it while putting a unique spin on Bruce Wayne's most famous (especially on celluloid) nemesis and the Gotham universe. This, on the other hand? It's like they decided to wing it once they received those big fat checks and didn't care if what ended up on the big screen was any good. This is the kind of mess that the inevitable CinemaSins/Honest Trailers videos will have a ball going to town on. It's hard not to feel for the poor actors stranded on the screen.

 

As for those stars? Joaquin Phoenix, after being the undisputed highlight of the first, mostly mails it in here and it's obvious he doesn't have the vocal chops to carry the tunes he sings in this. Given his recent headlines and reports of past professional behavior, it might not have been a bad choice if he had also bailed right before filming started on this fiasco. But of course, the real curiosity is Lady Gaga as Harleen "Lee" Quinzel. I always love me some Gaga, but she's never better than "adequate," though that's probably not her fault that the movie doesn't give her much to work with, especially when there's been reports recently that a lot of her material was cut.

 

Then there's that ending that is more likely to leave audiences straight up angry than divided. To be fair, I did almost admire the boldness of it all. But like the rest of the movie, it just falls flat due to flawed execution. After all of that, poor pathetic Arthur Fleck's ultimate fate is to be stabbed to death by some goon lurking in the background the whole time who then proceeds to cut up his face and become (dun dun dun) The Next Joker as a possible tease for a sequel or spin-off we will never see? I couldn't help but sigh to myself "are you fucking kidding me?" as the lights came up.

 

This is the kind of "what were they thinking?" misguided trainwreck that will likely miss the boat even as a future cult favorite once its already certified reputation as a Cats-level catastrophe has settled. Razzies incoming.

 

D

Like reading my mind. I actully also said “are you fucking kidding me?” when the movie ended 

[dudalb]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:34 AM, filmlover said:

His singing was good in Walk the Line though there it was leaning more towards Johnny Cash imitation than his actual voice.

 

I don't think Arthur dying at the end is a terrible idea and could've been something special. In theory. In execution, though? The Future Joker needed to play a much larger role than simply being shown making creepy faces in the background the whole movie for it to have any meaning. You can tell that all involved approached this with such poor planning as to the direction they wanted it to go in to the point where it's reasonable to question why they even bothered to make it at all (besides the money, of course).

Phoenix does OK with Once In my Life but he butchured "Bewtiched, Bothered and Bewildred" a song which should have gone to Harley, fits her situation much more, and Gaga could have knocked it out of the park.

As for this thread, nothing is funnier then a bunch of geeks trying to prove how intellectual and sophisticated they are Natrually they would fall for the kind of phony sophictication that is Joker Pad De Deux.

This was a bad film. I was shocked how badly staged most of the musical numbers were. I know Phillips loves musicals..the homage to 'Bandwagon" down to showing a clip from the movie shows that, but he sure as hell did not learn how to make a musical.

[dudalb]

4 hours ago, wildphantom said:

those theorising a Ledger connection simply underline there are a lot of ‘fans’ that just did not get what Todd Phillips intended these films to be.  Honestly, it boggles the mind that they’re talking about Batman connections even after Folie à Deux. 

I think it was painfully clear that these films were meant to take place out of the mainstream DC universe.

 

[dudalb]

8 hours ago, SnokesLegs said:

Yeah I just didn’t get the “ohhhhh HE’S the REAL Joker” that some people are somehow reading into it. To me, the killer was clearly just a pissed off fan who didn’t like that his idol had rejected an ideology that they personally identified with, so they killed him out of spite. As Firepower says above, it literally mirrors the fan reaction, and I can’t help but feel like Phillips was aiming for that as a critique of how some fans took the wrong message from the original (it could also be seen as being relevant to how the fans of a certain political personality worship him like a deity too, and how dangerous that can be…but we’ll not get into that!). I just think that Phillips didn’t expect this message to be so resoundingly disliked.

 

Not defending the film here exactly because after ruminating on it, while I didn’t hate it, it IS a mess and these ideas don’t seem fleshed out enough to properly land, but I get what he was going for even if the execution is what lets it down.

I can get the idea that the guy who kills Fleck will become a version of the  Joker, but that he becomes Heath Ledgers joker is fan bullshit as it;s worst.

[titanic2187]

On 10/7/2024 at 10:02 AM, Dominic Draper said:

This was my favorite scene of the film I think. I didn't expect it. Worked so well for me.

Other than the opening cartoon scene, Gary's courtroom scene is the biggest highlight. Coincidentally, his scene is the first Joker when he witnessed the killing was also the one of the most memorable scene.

[wattage]

18 hours ago, dudalb said:

I can get the idea that the guy who kills Fleck will become a version of the  Joker, but that he becomes Heath Ledgers joker is fan bullshit as it;s worst.

The face scar story is specifically an invention by Nolan for his version of the character that has been aped very rarely in some Joker stuff afterwards as an homage to that version of the character. It's avoided for a reason, because everyone associates it specifically with those movies. It's done very deliberately here, so when people watching the movie ask that question you don't get to just say it's bullshit. It doesn't really matter that the timeline makes no sense for that in any way, it's evocative, as everything in this movie is trying to be, and so people are going to react however they're going to react. 

 

This is something that's been pointed out over the dayy since the movie has come out by multiple people and then THR themselves put out their article where they said this imagery was vetoed by Christopher Nolan himself for the exact reason that's been brought up. 

[keysersoze123]

If Philips wanted total control then WB should have insisted on lower upfront payment and take backend deals. If the movie clicked its great for everyone and if it flopped then they get very little as well. This deal was terrible negotiation from Zaslav and co. They gave huge upfront payment to Philips, Phoenix and Gaga and also huge budget to shoot in LA without tax breaks for a movie that showed middle finger to the fanbase. WB deserves all the brickbats for this. Its screw up beyond anything I have seen for a big budget sequel. 

[WittyUsername]

Personally, I cant say I agree with the people are mad about Arthur Fleck not being the “real” Joker. I never cared for the idea that these movies are meant to be Batman prequels anyway. That’s why I rolled my eyes when the first movie did the death of the Waynes. At the very least, if they wanted to go there, I always wished they went the extra mile and killed off Bruce too. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:15 PM by WittyUsername