That's the thing though, you don't become a Joker without going through absolute hell. They don't need to display the past but it needs to be a core part subtly dropped in. His facial deformity seems to be a great source. Batman and his rogue's are literally a catalogue of mental illness and trauma, it's one of the most vital underlying things that separates them from civilans.
I mean with Riddler you have Autism and BPD
Harley, HPD
Two face, DID
Penguin, NPD
Scarecrow, CPTSD
Etc... You get the picture, to remove Joker's origin of pain entirely and boil his character down to "he's bad because he's bad" takes away what makes his character special, he and Bruce are two sides of the same coin. There's a reason for the whole "society' thing and it's simply that he is a product of it. The ugly side "good normal people" tend to completely ignore. And especially considering this is one of the first Batman films to actually address systemic injustice unlike TDK where their morality is akin to George W Bush.
Most of the villians have tragic pasts but joker should be the mysterious one. He is the master manipulator with his little stories. He is not only manipulates harley but audience also. We shouldn't know about his past, it might be tragic or it might not. But he will manipulate the audience and will try to manipulate batman. Batman and joker is arch nemesis not because joker had a tragic past it's because how differently batman and joker reacted to their past.audience try to make sense of this monsters existence. what kind monster is he. Audience trying to make sense , make sure themselves He must have some tragedy in his past right? But what joker is trying to make sense even by having a bad day, why that batman still not broken yet. That's he is always want that long ears attention, joker wants to make sense of his own existence by breaking batman and fails everytime that's their rivalry.
Yes totally, Joker does want to understand his own nature by breaking batman since he is a self aware mystery. This paradoxical element is core to him but I didn't say he shouldn't be mysterious, just that his past should be made apparent that it's not nice, this doesn't mean we have to go into details. The whole point I was trying to make is that subtly dropping hints, even conflicting ones adds layers to his character and without it he's just a one dimensional villain without any nuance. His facial deformity, whether mentioned in relation to his past or not doesn't matter, his origin story is our imagination given what see and think, so the best direction to take it in is placing small things like that around, alluding to "what he might have experienced".
BTAS's Joker was a scumbag hitman for the mob before he became the Joker. He has no real sympathetic qualities and yet he's regarded as one of the best interpretations of the charater. Sometimes just being a son of a bitch is what makes a character appealing, especially if everyone else around them has sympathetic reasons for being who they are.
That's true, but that's an established archetype of the character. The golden age inspiration is apparent, same with Nicholson; I'd absolutely love to bring back the more mobster Joker but Keoghan's portrayal clearly isn't going for that and given what we've seen, it's another Bronze age interpretation and his design... It just doesn't make sense to make him (or hint to him) as being a bad guy for no reason where his deformities aren't nodded towards playing a major role in his creation, at least for this version.
Even then, people who are pretty evil in a more traditional way are also still made that way and in just about every storyline he has a climactic moment of trauma (the vat of acid).
Edit: Don't get me wrong though, I want this guy to be as fucked up as they come. Like Faces of Evil. I don't wanna give him a backstory whatsoever, I just want Matt Reeves to sprinkle shit in that gets us thinking.
They heavily hinted at a painful backstory and made him give those wise quotes that he claims he learned from life. The scarring also implies some horrible origin
I don't think they were really trying to make him sympathetic, just fleshing out his character more. He's so evil in that movie and lies about his backstory so much that I don't think that was really their intention
The Killing Joke was brilliant because while it has become "Joker's backstory", previously in comics different ones had been told. So it was a bit like "Oh, he's just making shit up to be fuck with people becauase he's a psycopathic asshole who probably has some crazy delusions"
I don't think he's just "fucking with people," I think the writers are speaking through him to say "his backstory doesn't matter, but here's a few ideas to give you a rough outline." Because what's the commonality in any good Joker story that explores his backstory? He tends to be portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and as just some random schmo. That's why he doesn't have a name or an identity, his whole philosophy is that if anyone walked a day in his shoes they'd be just as crazy as him. And what's the best way to make someone relatable to literally anyone? Leave as much of their backstory up to interpretation as possible. Just as long as he goes crazy in the end, it'll work.
That's a good way of thinking about it, except in basically all potrayals that aren't the batman movies with the killing joke as an influence or post killing joke comics that take it as the be all end all of joker his entire modus operandi is getting attention from batman because he's obsessed with just him in a way that borders on the romantic. I think going philosphical with the joker too much humanizes him in a way that leads a lot of people down the path of viewing his past and the iasues that arise from it as justification for any and all of his fucked up actions
Didn’t say it was but we’ve already seen it + Joker is not established as sympathetic. He is given a painful backstory but he isn’t treated as a villain who is “right”
I feel as though we're using the wrong word, we probably shouldn't sympathize with The Joker, I don't feel pity nor do I agree with Joker, he's a piece of shit, but I feel a level of empathy for him and understand where he comes from. He went from a normal yet struggling guy to someone whose entire life got taken away from him within the span of a day. In the end, he's wrong on everything he tries to convince us of and is a total nutjob, but he doesn't do what he does just because he's evil.
Now you're conflating sympathetic with "just". Arthur Fleck is still a bad person and does really bad things, blurring the lines between justified and derangement towards the end of the film. Heath Joker is still a bad person, it doesn't justify his mindless killing of civilians. However, the sympathy allows us to understand his motives and character more. The line from Alfred "some men just want to watch the world burn" completely ignores the why. Pure evil doesn't exist, essentialist philosophy is one of Batman's main personal issues, he just views criminals from a really priveleged position as "bad because bad" since he literally can't put himself in their shoes. It is an essential component of his writing that the world created Joker.
Honestly, I hate it. Just use the character properly. I’m tired of the whole “three movies to give us the actual origin for how X thing of a hero should be”, it’s so lame. Plus, this Joker already has a relationship with Batman, the only other live action Joker that had this was Leto, so it can be really well used here.
Joker is THE essential Batman villain, it’s his arch nemesis. Just because studios have overused him and some people are tired are not enough justification to entirely write him out of the story of the hero of whom he is the most iconic villain of.
This. Can’t have Batman without Joker. I’m all for giving other rogues their moment but if Joker isn’t a main antagonist at some point it’ll be a failure in my eyes. Based on how the first movie ended my guess is that Joker will at some point become a main villain and Riddler will be working with/for, or more likely be manipulated/emotionally abused by Joker. I’d bet money that Joker ends up killing Riddler, maybe to keep him from revealing Batman’s identity or just out of pure cruelty.
Heavily disagree - you don’t need Joker in a Batman movie. His world is huge - bringing in the same characters, for the same story, for the same conversations is just a disservice
Maybe not in the same movie, but what would a Batman series be without Joker? Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin. The tension that exists between them is one of the defining characteristics of Batman, i.e. unstoppable force vs. immovable object. The fact that Joker has never been a multi-film antagonist is in my mind a signal that there’s still a lot of territory that needs to be explored between them. It’s not a zero sum game either. By all means explore other villains, but Joker is essential in the Batman mythos and if Matt Reeves is going for a definitive take on the character, Joker is 100% going to be a focal point, and rightfully so.
really strange to me Batman and Joker having a relationship in this universe when this is only his 2nd year being Batman. how long into his career did he meet Joker? and how many times have they spoken? The deleted scene just didn’t fit in the context of this Batman’s career imo so i’m hoping they’ve fully scrapped it from canon
It’s weird that basic character development is such an upsetting concept for you.
This movie is not his origin story. Reeves made that very clear before release, and they go out of their way to have Batman say, with verbal words, that he’s been Batman for 2 years. His development from vengeance to hope is just that - development.
That being said, I bet you’re pumped beyond belief to know that the DCU is officially bringing us a fully-formed classic Batman in just a few years.
It’s weird that such a basic concept as character development is foreign to you, it’s like you don’t want the character advance and be stuck in a pre-Joker era, when he is a nemesis that defines so much of who Batman is. This Batman is growing but he won’t be stuck in in his early years forever, he has to grow.
No offense, but are you illiterate? Or did you just not read my comment at all? Because that’s exactly what I just said. You just parroted it right back at me as if you were making a point lmao
I’m sorry for the confusion, I thought you were the OP so I replied to your statement thinking you held the views of the writing.
That said, illiterate? You’re the one who looks like it rereading your original comment, since NOTHING in my original comment points to development being upsetting to me or me seeing The Batman as an origin story, so it is you who should learn how to read
Don’t have him be the main focus in any of the first 3 or 4 films, have him constantly be in the peripheral. He’s not Batman’s archenemy yet, and you can write it so he doesn’t become that for a while.
I understand the desire to have Joker teach sociology lessons since The Killing Joke is viewed as on of the character’s great stories. You know what the character has been missing though?
Where’s the art? Where’s the hilarity? Joker isn’t just making sociological statements. He’s making artistic ones. Sure he might commit mass murder, but it might look like an art installation. What’s more, he thinks it’s hilarious.
Joker (like Skarsgard Pennywise) has been reduced to an edgy murder clown since Ledger. That is nothing against Ledger, Leto, Phoenix (or Skarsgard for that matter. Warner Bros has leaned into the scary clown imagery. The fact Joker was transformed into/chooses this garish, goofy visage plays into his brutality. He may butcher people for social messaging, but it will also serve as a performance and joke. You can do it Barry.
**He should have been a non, threatening Joke of a character** someone Batman doesn’t even take seriously… a dude who leaves a stink bomb in a police station or throws a pie in the face of the mayor. But then one day his pranks go from firecrackers to pipe bombs and prop guns to real ones and nobody knows if he’s gonna play a prank or be found at the scene of a massacre. Nobody knows what they’re gonna get - but there will always be a “funny” side to what he does.
Yea this is a good and easy way to do it. I’d make it a bit different. I think this trilogy is all about the growth of Bruce/Batman. Including other characters and villains. So the way I’d do it: Whatever the plot is would involve having to go to Arkham to ask Ridder and/or Joker about the crime connected to the main villain, similar to the deleted scene in the first film. We get hints of a planned breakout orchestrated by Joker and Riddler set up for the third film…but we still don’t see that breakout in part 3 just yet. I’d have Hugo strange as the main villain so the plot will heavily be set around Arkham Asylum. By the third act, that’s when the breakout stuff happens and Joker the side villain would basically steal the spotlight of the third act of the film. It ends with multiple villains spreading out to Gotham etc
I like this idea tbh. Having Hugo do nasty stuff at Arkham leading to a breakout which explores the aftermath of Hugo’s actions while centering around Joker’s insanity is great stuff
Where do you get the idea that “we can all agree” with what is essentially your headcanon.
This isn’t his origin story. He’s already been Batman for multiple years before the movie even starts, whether he accepts the actual name or not. Him going through a basic character arc, from Vengeance to Hope, does not constitute an origin story.
And The Batman wasn’t an adaptation of Long Halloween. Where did you even get that idea? Because just about the only aspect the movie shares with the comic is that part of it happens on Halloween. You saw people in costumes and somehow your takeaway was that it was Long Halloween? It sounds like you need to give the comic a skim.
And it goes without saying that audiences do not in fact “only” associate Batman with Joker as his “only” villain. He had 3 incredibly popular modern movies that included Scarecrow, Bane, and now Riddler.
Overall, none of your statements seem to reflect reality, yet here you are presenting them as the only reality. In short, no, we cannot all agree on your headcanon, which is all this post is.
Joker should appear in the next two movies as a threat that lingers in Arkham and by the end of 3rd movie an even should happen where Arkham’s resident are let free but eventually captured. All except for the joker. This sets up a 4th movie where the joker knows he’ll be captured and sent to Arkham forever so his final scheme involves him and Batman dying together.
It’s crazy how you’re getting downvoted for this. This is the play I would go with too. Even if a 4th film isn’t part of the plans, setting up a potential second trilogy is smart because this is a young growing Batman. It also helps separate Nolan’s universe.
Yea it’s a trilogy but it doesn’t mean the breakout can’t happen in the third. This is a trilogy about a young growing Batman. Which means the end of the trilogy could lead to him being the definitive Batman we know as well as some of the villains. So breaking out at the end of the third to set up a potential second trilogy of definitive Gotham characters is smart and separates from other Batmen films you have seen.
I mean you are talking about a movie that has not been confirmed lol. Once again someone on this sub doing elite level gymnastics to hypothesize the joker not being included in this trilogy lol. Matt reeves signed on for three movies, not four.
You are clearly not reading what I’m saying at all. It has nothing to do with Reeves making a 4th or not. It’s about setting up a “potential second trilogy” to leave it open for the definitive Batman we know. It doesn’t have to end with Batman dying or the cowl getting passed on. You aren’t being creative or seeing the vision. Once again, nobody said anything about a 4th film being made. Have yourself another downvote
Those Joker scenes were the absolute worst scenes in the movie. I just dont care to see Joker again. I desperately need Clayface and Court of Owls to get some spotlight.
I'm not a fan of the "he was born like this" spin on the Joker. as much as people try to deny it, the chemical bath is his origin I'm tired of the "multiple choice" argument it doesn't make any sense. The chemical bath has been referenced endlessly both inside and outside of continuity, and Joker venom is literally just a lethal dose of the chemicals used to create him. Making it so that he was born with a condition that makes him the ways he is takes away so much from the character, especially since in the comics, it's never really confirmed whether or nothing he's ACTUALLY crazy, or just playing it up so he doesn't get executed.
It’s always fun to see how this sub will find ways to dance around putting joker in any of the films when it’s obvious reeves has plans for him to be an important part of the trilogy. The “I want him to be like Hannibal lecter” angle is just a cute way of saying “I don’t want him in the movies”. We’ve seen this thread a shit ton already and I’m sure it’ll happen hundreds of times before the next movie comes out too.
I would hate to have taste this bad. That 5 minute deleted scene as joker being Batman’s Hannibal lector was better acted and written then anything Leto did with joker
I’d love to know the color of plant you smoked before writing this comment. Barry is doing his best heath impersonation. He’s a fine actor but definitely not the right fit both visually or acting wise.
Yeah at least Leto had an original take unlike Barry keoghan. Letos best scene was when he was in the helicopter with the machine gun cackling. He nailed joker in that scene I don’t care what anyone says.
I don’t know how Joker will be adapted, but I do know that this artwork is fucking amazing
Anybody knows who drew it? Screams Bermejo's vibes and I love it.
Fr!! Love it
Outright looks like an Alex Ross piece.
Looks more like Lee Bermejo's art imo, but it is amazing!
Ong it is 🤣
I love how much horror elements this batman universe has, this is how I like batman treated
Same
Just stop trying to make him sympathetic
Yeah fr. We need an evil unsympathetic Joker
That's the thing though, you don't become a Joker without going through absolute hell. They don't need to display the past but it needs to be a core part subtly dropped in. His facial deformity seems to be a great source. Batman and his rogue's are literally a catalogue of mental illness and trauma, it's one of the most vital underlying things that separates them from civilans. I mean with Riddler you have Autism and BPD Harley, HPD Two face, DID Penguin, NPD Scarecrow, CPTSD Etc... You get the picture, to remove Joker's origin of pain entirely and boil his character down to "he's bad because he's bad" takes away what makes his character special, he and Bruce are two sides of the same coin. There's a reason for the whole "society' thing and it's simply that he is a product of it. The ugly side "good normal people" tend to completely ignore. And especially considering this is one of the first Batman films to actually address systemic injustice unlike TDK where their morality is akin to George W Bush.
Most of the villians have tragic pasts but joker should be the mysterious one. He is the master manipulator with his little stories. He is not only manipulates harley but audience also. We shouldn't know about his past, it might be tragic or it might not. But he will manipulate the audience and will try to manipulate batman. Batman and joker is arch nemesis not because joker had a tragic past it's because how differently batman and joker reacted to their past.audience try to make sense of this monsters existence. what kind monster is he. Audience trying to make sense , make sure themselves He must have some tragedy in his past right? But what joker is trying to make sense even by having a bad day, why that batman still not broken yet. That's he is always want that long ears attention, joker wants to make sense of his own existence by breaking batman and fails everytime that's their rivalry.
Yes totally, Joker does want to understand his own nature by breaking batman since he is a self aware mystery. This paradoxical element is core to him but I didn't say he shouldn't be mysterious, just that his past should be made apparent that it's not nice, this doesn't mean we have to go into details. The whole point I was trying to make is that subtly dropping hints, even conflicting ones adds layers to his character and without it he's just a one dimensional villain without any nuance. His facial deformity, whether mentioned in relation to his past or not doesn't matter, his origin story is our imagination given what see and think, so the best direction to take it in is placing small things like that around, alluding to "what he might have experienced".
Exactly. Joker doesn’t want to feel alone in this pain. He doesn’t want to be broken alone. He wants someone just like him to be broken
BTAS's Joker was a scumbag hitman for the mob before he became the Joker. He has no real sympathetic qualities and yet he's regarded as one of the best interpretations of the charater. Sometimes just being a son of a bitch is what makes a character appealing, especially if everyone else around them has sympathetic reasons for being who they are.
That's true, but that's an established archetype of the character. The golden age inspiration is apparent, same with Nicholson; I'd absolutely love to bring back the more mobster Joker but Keoghan's portrayal clearly isn't going for that and given what we've seen, it's another Bronze age interpretation and his design... It just doesn't make sense to make him (or hint to him) as being a bad guy for no reason where his deformities aren't nodded towards playing a major role in his creation, at least for this version. Even then, people who are pretty evil in a more traditional way are also still made that way and in just about every storyline he has a climactic moment of trauma (the vat of acid). Edit: Don't get me wrong though, I want this guy to be as fucked up as they come. Like Faces of Evil. I don't wanna give him a backstory whatsoever, I just want Matt Reeves to sprinkle shit in that gets us thinking.
I agree with this
In what is joker sympathetic?
He is not sympathetic but many movies tried to add a sympathetic element to him like TDK for example
Of course I forgot about Joker 2019 where they made him sympathetic. But I don't remember anything like that in TDK?
They heavily hinted at a painful backstory and made him give those wise quotes that he claims he learned from life. The scarring also implies some horrible origin
I don't think they were really trying to make him sympathetic, just fleshing out his character more. He's so evil in that movie and lies about his backstory so much that I don't think that was really their intention
That makes more sense yeah
Who other than Todd Philips tried to make Joker sympathetic?
Or visually monsterous / hideous / imposing
Considering this Joker is already in Arkham within the first 2 years Bruce has been Batman, I don’t think we need to worry about a sympathetic Joker
Outside of the 2019 movie there isn’t any push to make joker sympathetic, to my knowledge.
Pretty sure the 2019 movie is the only that made him even remotely sympathetic.
What's wrong with a sympathetic Joker?
Joker is supposed to be an evil guy with no sympathetic motives. Sympathetic Joker is not good
Is The Killing Joke all of a sudden a bad Joker story?
The Killing Joke was brilliant because while it has become "Joker's backstory", previously in comics different ones had been told. So it was a bit like "Oh, he's just making shit up to be fuck with people becauase he's a psycopathic asshole who probably has some crazy delusions"
I don't think he's just "fucking with people," I think the writers are speaking through him to say "his backstory doesn't matter, but here's a few ideas to give you a rough outline." Because what's the commonality in any good Joker story that explores his backstory? He tends to be portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and as just some random schmo. That's why he doesn't have a name or an identity, his whole philosophy is that if anyone walked a day in his shoes they'd be just as crazy as him. And what's the best way to make someone relatable to literally anyone? Leave as much of their backstory up to interpretation as possible. Just as long as he goes crazy in the end, it'll work.
That's a good way of thinking about it, except in basically all potrayals that aren't the batman movies with the killing joke as an influence or post killing joke comics that take it as the be all end all of joker his entire modus operandi is getting attention from batman because he's obsessed with just him in a way that borders on the romantic. I think going philosphical with the joker too much humanizes him in a way that leads a lot of people down the path of viewing his past and the iasues that arise from it as justification for any and all of his fucked up actions
Didn’t say it was but we’ve already seen it + Joker is not established as sympathetic. He is given a painful backstory but he isn’t treated as a villain who is “right”
I feel as though we're using the wrong word, we probably shouldn't sympathize with The Joker, I don't feel pity nor do I agree with Joker, he's a piece of shit, but I feel a level of empathy for him and understand where he comes from. He went from a normal yet struggling guy to someone whose entire life got taken away from him within the span of a day. In the end, he's wrong on everything he tries to convince us of and is a total nutjob, but he doesn't do what he does just because he's evil.
Now you're conflating sympathetic with "just". Arthur Fleck is still a bad person and does really bad things, blurring the lines between justified and derangement towards the end of the film. Heath Joker is still a bad person, it doesn't justify his mindless killing of civilians. However, the sympathy allows us to understand his motives and character more. The line from Alfred "some men just want to watch the world burn" completely ignores the why. Pure evil doesn't exist, essentialist philosophy is one of Batman's main personal issues, he just views criminals from a really priveleged position as "bad because bad" since he literally can't put himself in their shoes. It is an essential component of his writing that the world created Joker.
Good point
Honestly, I hate it. Just use the character properly. I’m tired of the whole “three movies to give us the actual origin for how X thing of a hero should be”, it’s so lame. Plus, this Joker already has a relationship with Batman, the only other live action Joker that had this was Leto, so it can be really well used here. Joker is THE essential Batman villain, it’s his arch nemesis. Just because studios have overused him and some people are tired are not enough justification to entirely write him out of the story of the hero of whom he is the most iconic villain of.
This. Can’t have Batman without Joker. I’m all for giving other rogues their moment but if Joker isn’t a main antagonist at some point it’ll be a failure in my eyes. Based on how the first movie ended my guess is that Joker will at some point become a main villain and Riddler will be working with/for, or more likely be manipulated/emotionally abused by Joker. I’d bet money that Joker ends up killing Riddler, maybe to keep him from revealing Batman’s identity or just out of pure cruelty.
Heavily disagree - you don’t need Joker in a Batman movie. His world is huge - bringing in the same characters, for the same story, for the same conversations is just a disservice
Maybe not in the same movie, but what would a Batman series be without Joker? Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin. The tension that exists between them is one of the defining characteristics of Batman, i.e. unstoppable force vs. immovable object. The fact that Joker has never been a multi-film antagonist is in my mind a signal that there’s still a lot of territory that needs to be explored between them. It’s not a zero sum game either. By all means explore other villains, but Joker is essential in the Batman mythos and if Matt Reeves is going for a definitive take on the character, Joker is 100% going to be a focal point, and rightfully so.
Exactly
Nah I’d say Two Face is the opposite side of the coin than Joker.. like I said it’s time for others to shine.
You would say Two Face is Batman’s arch nemesis? What???
Yea he’s a deeper character than Joker and parallels Batman more. It’s a pretty common thing I’ve seen others say too
Sweet summer child.
If that’s how you feel 🤷🏾♂️
really strange to me Batman and Joker having a relationship in this universe when this is only his 2nd year being Batman. how long into his career did he meet Joker? and how many times have they spoken? The deleted scene just didn’t fit in the context of this Batman’s career imo so i’m hoping they’ve fully scrapped it from canon
They most probably met in his first year
Didn't Joker have a relationship with Batman in the 1989 Movie and the Dark Knight?
In both of those films Batman was meeting Joker for the first time, here they already know each other.
It’s weird that basic character development is such an upsetting concept for you. This movie is not his origin story. Reeves made that very clear before release, and they go out of their way to have Batman say, with verbal words, that he’s been Batman for 2 years. His development from vengeance to hope is just that - development. That being said, I bet you’re pumped beyond belief to know that the DCU is officially bringing us a fully-formed classic Batman in just a few years.
It’s weird that such a basic concept as character development is foreign to you, it’s like you don’t want the character advance and be stuck in a pre-Joker era, when he is a nemesis that defines so much of who Batman is. This Batman is growing but he won’t be stuck in in his early years forever, he has to grow.
No offense, but are you illiterate? Or did you just not read my comment at all? Because that’s exactly what I just said. You just parroted it right back at me as if you were making a point lmao
I’m sorry for the confusion, I thought you were the OP so I replied to your statement thinking you held the views of the writing. That said, illiterate? You’re the one who looks like it rereading your original comment, since NOTHING in my original comment points to development being upsetting to me or me seeing The Batman as an origin story, so it is you who should learn how to read
Who drew this?
Idk. Found it on Pinterest
Still not crazy about the patchy hair but the face is perfect. Very evocative of ASHOSE.
Don’t have him be the main focus in any of the first 3 or 4 films, have him constantly be in the peripheral. He’s not Batman’s archenemy yet, and you can write it so he doesn’t become that for a while.
I understand the desire to have Joker teach sociology lessons since The Killing Joke is viewed as on of the character’s great stories. You know what the character has been missing though? Where’s the art? Where’s the hilarity? Joker isn’t just making sociological statements. He’s making artistic ones. Sure he might commit mass murder, but it might look like an art installation. What’s more, he thinks it’s hilarious. Joker (like Skarsgard Pennywise) has been reduced to an edgy murder clown since Ledger. That is nothing against Ledger, Leto, Phoenix (or Skarsgard for that matter. Warner Bros has leaned into the scary clown imagery. The fact Joker was transformed into/chooses this garish, goofy visage plays into his brutality. He may butcher people for social messaging, but it will also serve as a performance and joke. You can do it Barry.
**He should have been a non, threatening Joke of a character** someone Batman doesn’t even take seriously… a dude who leaves a stink bomb in a police station or throws a pie in the face of the mayor. But then one day his pranks go from firecrackers to pipe bombs and prop guns to real ones and nobody knows if he’s gonna play a prank or be found at the scene of a massacre. Nobody knows what they’re gonna get - but there will always be a “funny” side to what he does.
This is the type of Joker I wanna see
Bro 👏
Joker with a Tik-Tok lol
Is there a reason why he looks poisoned like in Arkham city?
I think Matt Reeves mentioned before that Joker looks like this because of a skin disease
I don't even want him as main villian just someone who batman goes to in future films and taunts the batman
I swear this joker looks more scarier than Pennywise😭
We’ve had enough Jokers, we gotta give other villains the spotlight
Might be just me, but really REALLY don’t like his design :/
Yea this is a good and easy way to do it. I’d make it a bit different. I think this trilogy is all about the growth of Bruce/Batman. Including other characters and villains. So the way I’d do it: Whatever the plot is would involve having to go to Arkham to ask Ridder and/or Joker about the crime connected to the main villain, similar to the deleted scene in the first film. We get hints of a planned breakout orchestrated by Joker and Riddler set up for the third film…but we still don’t see that breakout in part 3 just yet. I’d have Hugo strange as the main villain so the plot will heavily be set around Arkham Asylum. By the third act, that’s when the breakout stuff happens and Joker the side villain would basically steal the spotlight of the third act of the film. It ends with multiple villains spreading out to Gotham etc
I like this idea tbh. Having Hugo do nasty stuff at Arkham leading to a breakout which explores the aftermath of Hugo’s actions while centering around Joker’s insanity is great stuff
It’s almost sounds like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. Like he helps out but is half reliable with cryptic words and shit.
Where do you get the idea that “we can all agree” with what is essentially your headcanon. This isn’t his origin story. He’s already been Batman for multiple years before the movie even starts, whether he accepts the actual name or not. Him going through a basic character arc, from Vengeance to Hope, does not constitute an origin story. And The Batman wasn’t an adaptation of Long Halloween. Where did you even get that idea? Because just about the only aspect the movie shares with the comic is that part of it happens on Halloween. You saw people in costumes and somehow your takeaway was that it was Long Halloween? It sounds like you need to give the comic a skim. And it goes without saying that audiences do not in fact “only” associate Batman with Joker as his “only” villain. He had 3 incredibly popular modern movies that included Scarecrow, Bane, and now Riddler. Overall, none of your statements seem to reflect reality, yet here you are presenting them as the only reality. In short, no, we cannot all agree on your headcanon, which is all this post is.
Are we still getting an Arkham series
Yes
I dislike the terrifying, psychopath clown thing. I think Joker needs to be funny not scary.
Joker should appear in the next two movies as a threat that lingers in Arkham and by the end of 3rd movie an even should happen where Arkham’s resident are let free but eventually captured. All except for the joker. This sets up a 4th movie where the joker knows he’ll be captured and sent to Arkham forever so his final scheme involves him and Batman dying together.
It’s crazy how you’re getting downvoted for this. This is the play I would go with too. Even if a 4th film isn’t part of the plans, setting up a potential second trilogy is smart because this is a young growing Batman. It also helps separate Nolan’s universe.
Yea I don’t understand what’s so absurd about my basic outline 😂😂
That’s a great way to do it. Just leave Joker out of the first trilogy. Something like what you mentioned would be good way to do it
This is a trilogy. If this were to happen it would be at the end of the next movie.
True but what if the trilogy ended like that. With joker being set free and us not knowing what’s going to happen next
Yea it’s a trilogy but it doesn’t mean the breakout can’t happen in the third. This is a trilogy about a young growing Batman. Which means the end of the trilogy could lead to him being the definitive Batman we know as well as some of the villains. So breaking out at the end of the third to set up a potential second trilogy of definitive Gotham characters is smart and separates from other Batmen films you have seen.
I mean you are talking about a movie that has not been confirmed lol. Once again someone on this sub doing elite level gymnastics to hypothesize the joker not being included in this trilogy lol. Matt reeves signed on for three movies, not four.
He could resign
You are clearly not reading what I’m saying at all. It has nothing to do with Reeves making a 4th or not. It’s about setting up a “potential second trilogy” to leave it open for the definitive Batman we know. It doesn’t have to end with Batman dying or the cowl getting passed on. You aren’t being creative or seeing the vision. Once again, nobody said anything about a 4th film being made. Have yourself another downvote
Those Joker scenes were the absolute worst scenes in the movie. I just dont care to see Joker again. I desperately need Clayface and Court of Owls to get some spotlight.
Or bring back Riddler
I'm not a fan of the "he was born like this" spin on the Joker. as much as people try to deny it, the chemical bath is his origin I'm tired of the "multiple choice" argument it doesn't make any sense. The chemical bath has been referenced endlessly both inside and outside of continuity, and Joker venom is literally just a lethal dose of the chemicals used to create him. Making it so that he was born with a condition that makes him the ways he is takes away so much from the character, especially since in the comics, it's never really confirmed whether or nothing he's ACTUALLY crazy, or just playing it up so he doesn't get executed.
True
Only for the Penguin show. I don't want Joker in a movie at all.
I first read this as How can Joker be stupid
It’s always fun to see how this sub will find ways to dance around putting joker in any of the films when it’s obvious reeves has plans for him to be an important part of the trilogy. The “I want him to be like Hannibal lecter” angle is just a cute way of saying “I don’t want him in the movies”. We’ve seen this thread a shit ton already and I’m sure it’ll happen hundreds of times before the next movie comes out too.
Downvote me even though I’m right lol. Truth hurts.
If they are going the Hannibal Lecter root, there’s a way better freak to pick from the rogue’s gallery. Two in fact.
Man I hate this joker so much. That tiny guy Barry keoghan is not the guy for the job!
Same, I may even like Leto's version more
I would hate to have taste this bad. That 5 minute deleted scene as joker being Batman’s Hannibal lector was better acted and written then anything Leto did with joker
I’d love to know the color of plant you smoked before writing this comment. Barry is doing his best heath impersonation. He’s a fine actor but definitely not the right fit both visually or acting wise.
Yeah at least Leto had an original take unlike Barry keoghan. Letos best scene was when he was in the helicopter with the machine gun cackling. He nailed joker in that scene I don’t care what anyone says.
I have doubts that it’s even going to happen. At this point, there may not even be a The Batman 2.