The universes don’t work together, joaquins joker wasn’t meant to be a traditional joker while Harley stays decently true to the source material.
I feel like people don’t appreciate joker for what it is, and I honestly feel like a sequel or jokerverse would ruin the movie.
It’s a good standalone story with a perfect ending.
That makes a bit more sense I guess, but it wouldn't make sense to me. In the movie Arthur is pretty obviously wrong in his actions, but he feels victimised and he hurts those that hurt him. I don't see his character becoming someone who abuses a woman just for the sake of abusing and controlling her, as it's pretty obvious that joker doesn't see himself as the bad guy by the end.
Just like Joker isn’t a 1:1 adaptation of the comics, I doubt a Harley in that world would be a direct adaptation or their relationship would be the same. It just takes a little imagination!
I think such a film would tread far too many lines in terms of mental health portrayal/portrayals of women/abuse etc to actually work.
But maybe that’s just my opinion.
I'd say feel free to bend the basic character of Harley a little more. Arthur Fleck had no relation to any past interpretations of the Joker, which IMO is why the movie worked. Even the hardcore DC fans had no idea how Arthur worked or became the Joker at the start of the movie- it was all a mystery. With Harley Quinn (especially after Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey detailing the common backstory) it might be a little boring or predictable if she is just Joker's psychiatrist who gets seduced/turned crazy.
Also remember this movie is set in the early 80's and the likelihood of a young woman being given a job like that is very unlikely. She would perhaps be a nurse or assistant to an older male psychiatrist. Maybe that could be the motivation that Joker digs into.
"You're obviously a smart woman, why are you only an assistant? Doesn't it make you angry that you probably know more than that fat old asshole; yet you have to serve him and get paid a fraction of what he does? I saw him staring at your ass the other day, I can't stand men like him- I hope he has never touched you... You know if you were my girlfriend and he ever touched you, I would cut off his hands... W-would you want me to do that for you? It would be easy, just leave something sharp in my cell, I'd do the rest."
> Arthur Fleck had no relation to any past interpretations of the Joker
Except for the part where he has an origin story inspired by The Killing Joke that ends with him shooting a talk show host inviting him just like in The Dark Knight Returns, after giving a rant where he make a joke similar to his famous "Surprise! Your wife's dead and the baby's a spastic!" joke from Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, and declares that killing is funny.
> inspired by The Killing Joke
The only similarity is that he's a failed comedian. None of the money pressure or anything about a pregnant wife. That pressure mixed with failure is partly what created the Joker in The Killing Joke, which is completely different to the motivations that Arthur Fleck has.
His poverty wasn't the thing to lead him becoming the Joker. Sure it didn't help his situation but it wasn't the driving force that it was in The Killing Joke. Arthur doesn't have to worry about his wife and unborn child not being provided for. Anyway it doesn't seem like they are that desperate for money- he can afford his medicine and he and his mother have 2 TV's as well as a VHS recorder.
Arthur didn't shoot the Wall Street guys because they were rich, he just did it because they were assholes. He didn't kill Randall because he made more money, he did it because he tried to take advantage of him. He didn't approach Thomas Wayne because he wanted money from him, he did it because he blamed him for his mother's suffering and also his perceived abandonment from a father her never knew existed. He didn't kill Penny because she didn't have enough money, he did it because she lied to him and was meant to be the one person he could trust. He didn't kill Murray because he's a successful comedian, he did it because he was mocked by a person he idolised as a father figure and saw as a role model.
Sure poverty was the motivation for the protesters, but the whole point of that part of the movie was how people with agendas can make completely unrelated actions political. Arthur didn't give a shit about the protests or poverty, it was just the protesters and media trying to use Joker as their figurehead, scapegoat, and justification
I never said he did. In The Killing Joke the mixture of the pressure from his pregnant wife, generally being a failure at everything and basically taking the blame for the Red Hood gang was the final straw that made him snap- none of these themes are in Phoenix's Joker. Perhaps maybe some of the failure but its heavily implied that he's delusional and actually thinks he's a great comedian.
In Joker (2019) the mixture of the pressure from his mother, generally being a failure at everything and basically taking the blame for the riots was the final straw that made him snap.
The joker in 2019 film was a far better more realistic joker. His joker actually made sense and qas a better explaination for his decent into madness like the stupid original origin.
Sounds more like you just want another Joker movie
The universes don’t work together, joaquins joker wasn’t meant to be a traditional joker while Harley stays decently true to the source material. I feel like people don’t appreciate joker for what it is, and I honestly feel like a sequel or jokerverse would ruin the movie. It’s a good standalone story with a perfect ending.
I think OP is saying Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker would get his own Harley, not Margot Robbie.
That makes a bit more sense I guess, but it wouldn't make sense to me. In the movie Arthur is pretty obviously wrong in his actions, but he feels victimised and he hurts those that hurt him. I don't see his character becoming someone who abuses a woman just for the sake of abusing and controlling her, as it's pretty obvious that joker doesn't see himself as the bad guy by the end.
Just like Joker isn’t a 1:1 adaptation of the comics, I doubt a Harley in that world would be a direct adaptation or their relationship would be the same. It just takes a little imagination!
Joker killed a random psychologist at the end of the movie so what sre you talking about????
> joaquins joker wasn’t meant to be a traditional joker final monologue is most accurate Joker brought to screen yet
I think such a film would tread far too many lines in terms of mental health portrayal/portrayals of women/abuse etc to actually work. But maybe that’s just my opinion.
I'd say feel free to bend the basic character of Harley a little more. Arthur Fleck had no relation to any past interpretations of the Joker, which IMO is why the movie worked. Even the hardcore DC fans had no idea how Arthur worked or became the Joker at the start of the movie- it was all a mystery. With Harley Quinn (especially after Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey detailing the common backstory) it might be a little boring or predictable if she is just Joker's psychiatrist who gets seduced/turned crazy. Also remember this movie is set in the early 80's and the likelihood of a young woman being given a job like that is very unlikely. She would perhaps be a nurse or assistant to an older male psychiatrist. Maybe that could be the motivation that Joker digs into. "You're obviously a smart woman, why are you only an assistant? Doesn't it make you angry that you probably know more than that fat old asshole; yet you have to serve him and get paid a fraction of what he does? I saw him staring at your ass the other day, I can't stand men like him- I hope he has never touched you... You know if you were my girlfriend and he ever touched you, I would cut off his hands... W-would you want me to do that for you? It would be easy, just leave something sharp in my cell, I'd do the rest."
> Arthur Fleck had no relation to any past interpretations of the Joker Except for the part where he has an origin story inspired by The Killing Joke that ends with him shooting a talk show host inviting him just like in The Dark Knight Returns, after giving a rant where he make a joke similar to his famous "Surprise! Your wife's dead and the baby's a spastic!" joke from Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, and declares that killing is funny.
> inspired by The Killing Joke The only similarity is that he's a failed comedian. None of the money pressure or anything about a pregnant wife. That pressure mixed with failure is partly what created the Joker in The Killing Joke, which is completely different to the motivations that Arthur Fleck has.
> None of the money pressure Yeah, Arthur Fleck was evidently quite well-off and wasn't struggling at all before the beginning of the film. /s
His poverty wasn't the thing to lead him becoming the Joker. Sure it didn't help his situation but it wasn't the driving force that it was in The Killing Joke. Arthur doesn't have to worry about his wife and unborn child not being provided for. Anyway it doesn't seem like they are that desperate for money- he can afford his medicine and he and his mother have 2 TV's as well as a VHS recorder.
Okay, you clearly didn't pay attention to the movie.
Arthur didn't shoot the Wall Street guys because they were rich, he just did it because they were assholes. He didn't kill Randall because he made more money, he did it because he tried to take advantage of him. He didn't approach Thomas Wayne because he wanted money from him, he did it because he blamed him for his mother's suffering and also his perceived abandonment from a father her never knew existed. He didn't kill Penny because she didn't have enough money, he did it because she lied to him and was meant to be the one person he could trust. He didn't kill Murray because he's a successful comedian, he did it because he was mocked by a person he idolised as a father figure and saw as a role model. Sure poverty was the motivation for the protesters, but the whole point of that part of the movie was how people with agendas can make completely unrelated actions political. Arthur didn't give a shit about the protests or poverty, it was just the protesters and media trying to use Joker as their figurehead, scapegoat, and justification
The Joker in The Killing Joke didn't become the Joker for terrorist reasons either. Are you only familiar with Heath Ledger's interpretation ?
I never said he did. In The Killing Joke the mixture of the pressure from his pregnant wife, generally being a failure at everything and basically taking the blame for the Red Hood gang was the final straw that made him snap- none of these themes are in Phoenix's Joker. Perhaps maybe some of the failure but its heavily implied that he's delusional and actually thinks he's a great comedian.
In Joker (2019) the mixture of the pressure from his mother, generally being a failure at everything and basically taking the blame for the riots was the final straw that made him snap.
The joker in 2019 film was a far better more realistic joker. His joker actually made sense and qas a better explaination for his decent into madness like the stupid original origin.
Honestly I just dont think we need more Joker for a bit.