so this movie is getting a sequel now? - Joker (2019) Discussion

[–] beavis (3249) 5 years ago

I was telling people I already seen this movie when it was called shutter island. plus I already know I have had mental health struggles why do I need this hollywood crap to remind me?

reply

[–] Master (1494) 5 years ago

that's why you should always watch cartoons sometimes

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

If you already told people then stop telling them again and again.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

And you mean Hollywood should cater specifically to you and your issues??

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

How is this movie in any way like Shutter Island?

reply

[–] beavis (3249) 4 years ago

i dunno haven't seen it yet, read a few bad review on letterboxd and reaffirmed my decision not to see it yet.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

Well, it's definitely not anything like Shutter Island, that's for sure. For what it's worth, I thought ti was decent. Nothing ground breaking but good.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Maybe or it is a con to get people to stay interested another week and see it a second or third time.

reply

[–] Master (1494) 5 years ago

i'll just buy it when it comes out on DVD Blu-Ray in Feb

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Tomb Raider is getting a sequel so maybe this movie will also.

reply

[–] Master (1494) 5 years ago

But they said it was just going to be a stand alone Joker Movie

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

As meaning he won't be acting with another character. He won't be in the Batman movie.

reply

[–] Master (1494) 4 years ago

I thought they meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standalone_film

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

They might consider a spiritual sequel tho', like a Lex Luthor movie for example. So it can be a series of realistic take on DC villains franchise type.

reply

[–] Recognizer (386) 4 years ago

What? But the Vikander Tomb Raider was shit. Why is it getting a sequel?

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Vikander needs to eat too, y'know.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

Different bunch making it. It might be better the next one.

reply

[–] Recognizer (386) 4 years ago

Possibly, but Vikander just doesn’t work in the role for me, and she’s a mediocre actor at best. She’s no Angelina Jolie, that’s for sure.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Vikander is really good in Ex Machina (2014).

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

If they did a sequel with him at a more advanced stage and with Batman, with a serious script, it would be awesome.

I was shocked at how good this film was.

reply

[–] Master (1494) 4 years ago

yup

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

I thought this was the closest to the comic book Joker yet.

I do wish they would include where he is exposed to chemicals that make him into a forced Joker look though. I also wish they would make Joker a bit of a mutant as a result. It would explain his longevity and durability.

BUT the most important is a good script and plot.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Chemicals would ruin the totally realistic vibe this movie had.

Also make ups are chemicals too. So that the tale that Joker was bleached permanently in chemicals can be taken as that he always "put his make ups" (he always being the Joker, and never going back into Arthur) even when he doesn't apply any make ups. A "permanent clown face" psychologically.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

I get you, but I think the "realistic" thing is stupid.

Batman is a science fiction character and that's the only way he can exist.

He has to have far future technology in order to escape cops. The Nolan movies were retarded. He turns his lights on on the highway and the cops can't see him?

You have to go full story or don't do it at all. The Marvel movies stuck with the super tech needed for some characters and everyone loved it. It's the real story and we like it.

You put the science fiction stuff in there with a good script and these DC movies would take off.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

If you don’t like a realistic take on Joker, then this movie isn’t for you. Turning it into a superhero movie goes against the premise.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

No it doesn't.

All the great superhero stories are about psychology.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

A focus on psychology has nothing to do with what I said.

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 4 years ago

I'd rather see it as a trilogy, with the second movie having Joker against the mob, and the third movie introducing Batman.

reply

[–] Master (1494) 4 years ago

I don't Know when people have such a clear vision and idea that does so well i worry when they try to do it again when they originally had no intentions to make more than one.

reply

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 4 years ago

I felt the same at first but it would be interesting to see a Batman from the Jokers perspective, as we saw an unsympathetic Alfred and Thomas Wayne in this movie, imagine what they’d do with Batman, my guess would be is that he only protects rich folk, more of a Scarlet Pimpernel character than pure Guardian of Gotham.

reply

[–] goldenbear81 (4) 4 years ago

Id like to see the story cross over into a New Batman series. It wouldn't have to be a direct sequel. It could be a sort of sequel. Even if this wasn't the plan going in, a second joker would just be redundant and Jared Leto sucks in the role.

If anyone has ever read DC comics, sometimes Vertigo characters cross over into regular DC comics (and vice versa) even though they don't inhabit the same world.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 4 years ago

Ehhh. DC doesn't know which version of their multiverse they want to go with. It's changed multiple times, even in the last couple years. So "they don't inhabit the same world" is impossible to say. . .the company just doesn't have a coherent enough approach to say, one way or the other.

reply