MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > Would it benefit for being NOT RELATED t...

Would it benefit for being NOT RELATED to Batman?

posted 4 years ago by Heisenberg (6313)
16 replies | jump to latest

I found the flimsy connection to the "real" batman story to be a distraction more than anything. It's there just for a sequel.

This film could take place in the real world, where a crazy man thinks he's the joker from batman, or in a semi real world where batman doesn't exist and this man just comes up with this character name Joker.

All the drama and the story arch for this guy would work all the same, if not even better considering the inconstincencies with batman's world (the age difference, the Wayne family being assholes, the joker itself etc).

I feel that it could have worked even better if there was no reference to gotham, arkham nor Wayne. What do you think?

[–] MrFilmJunkie (857) 4 years ago

it wouldn't have generated the same hype. if this had no connection to the joker character from batman, it would be a small independent film with a very limited theatrical run, earning < 1m dollars at the box office.

[–] Mikester (121) 4 years ago

Totally. Totally totally totally.

I regarded it as a tiny bit artsy, the connection to the blockbuster makes it 'special', but without the connection it would just be artsy and an 'underground tip'

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

No. I like it this way. It opens audience eyes to the fact that comicbook movies can be made differently too. Not always fantastical, larger-than-life and over-the-top like MCU movies. Without the Wayne and Gotham and Arkham connection this would be merely a movie, not a comicbook movie.

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 4 years ago

Well, if comicbook movies audiences are too ignorant to know that art can be shaped in other ways than marvel godawful style, that's their problem.

Having said that, this is NOT a comicbook movie in any way, other than it's remotely based on 1 villain from batman comics.

How exactly this would barely be a movie without Wayne etc?
They had no role in it (other than fanservice for a possible sequel), Thomas Wayne and Alfred were such only because of their name, they had no resemblance to anything seen in batman. Gotham city could be any modern city anywhere.
More importantly, the character, his story arch, the action, the mood, had nothing in common with their "sorce" comicbook, nor with comicbook movies in general.
Instead this film finds its artistic merits elsewhere.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

What? Who said this would barely be a movie without Wayne etc?

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 4 years ago

OOps, I misread.
Well, ok, then it would merely be a movie.
Considering all the rest I said, how would not being a comicbook movie be a problem?

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

I didn't say it be a problem. I just like it this way. Because, as I actually said this time, it opens audience's prespectives. But you said that's their problem. So that's that. What can I say more?

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 4 years ago

I don't know...how are you doing today?

[–] Galactus03 (4289) 4 years ago

There has been a ton of superhero tv shows that does just that....Daredevil, punisher etc....

[–] einstein (2291) 4 years ago

people are so dumbed down , that it has to be a superhero movie, for people to watch anything these days.

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

This film could take place in the real world, where a crazy man thinks he's the joker from batman, or in a semi real world where batman doesn't exist and this man just comes up with this character name Joker.

That's more or less what it is. There's a Wayne family and Bruce loses his family but there's no Batman. They're not making a sequel despite rumors so that's where this story ends. It's all the better for it, I think. A sequel would ruin it.

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 4 years ago

Yes, that's why I thought of this angle myself: it's a legitimate story on its own, with no batman connection. And I like it better this way too.

I was annoyed by the Wayne family sidestory: it's not needed and felt crammed in.
I cared about this guy and his movie, not that he believed Thomas Wayne was his father (could have been any other rich asshole); nor that the Wayne were bad people; nor that they got shot in front of their son because of the riots caused by Fleck.
That didn't add anything to this story other than fan service and a door to a sequel in batman world.

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

It was certainly not meant for a sequel as the filmmakers said it’s not gonna happen.

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 4 years ago

One more reason for leaving it out alltogether, than.

[–] AP (5258) 4 years ago

I considered sort of an open-ended question. What would Bruce become? This is obviously not a superhero world so he will never be Batman? What then?

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

An emo, brooding, revengeful billionaire.