Joker: Folie à Deux | Official Teaser Trailer

Trailer for the sequel with Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix.

This is about what I was expecting. From everything I already had heard about this, nothing is surprising. It looks like something that anyone who liked the first one will like. Like the first one made up a new origin for Joker, it certainly looks like we get a different origin for Harley here, which is what I would expect, too.

I'm willing to give it a shot. I thought the first one was fine - good for a comic book movie, but I don't completely disagree with the critique that it didn't add enough to the better King of Comedy to be great.

ETA - I seem to be becoming the trailer guy here. Sorry about that.

The trailer looks interesting. I did see the first movie of Joker and it was good. So I have a feeling that this movie will be good. Thank you for sharing. :smile:

So I dreaded this trailer. The idea of having so much of the movie translated into a cinematic opera musical sounded great to me, and Gaga playing Harley hit a key note that told me this was going to be good, without needing to see any adverts or promos.

Then the reality of it set in. I'm a bipolar paranoid schizophrenic that suffers from a long history of seizures and hallucinations. I remember sitting in the theatre watching the first one and immediately could recognize an actor portraying someone similar to myself. Easily half the first movie was a complete mental fabrication, with what you saw simply not being real.

That terrified me. The very idea of spending days in a world that isn't real while reality around you is melting down should shake any cognitive individual. As much as I truly want to, memories of the first might keep me from seeing this movie.

I think Joker is a good movie but not an enjoyable movie. It deals with a lot of uncomfortable stuff like the state of mental health care in the United States. The scenes with the jaded social worker are so spot on. But I can see why a lot of people didn't like it because its NOT a comic book movie.

I am worried about Hollywood doing what Hollywood does. Like some movie exec saying "hey Joker made a lot of money. Let's do Joker 2. As a twist, lets add Harley Quinn because she is so popular. That will sell some tickets!" Though, with the same writer and director, I am reservedly optimistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trafalgar

I think Joker is a good movie but not an enjoyable movie. It deals with a lot of uncomfortable stuff like the state of mental health care in the United States. The scenes with the jaded social worker are so spot on. But I can see why a lot of people didn't like it because its NOT a comic book movie.

I am worried about Hollywood doing what Hollywood does. Like some movie exec saying "hey Joker made a lot of money. Let's do Joker 2. As a twist, lets add Harley Quinn because she is so popular. That will sell some tickets!" Though, with the same writer and director, I am reservedly optimistic.

---

*nods*

This is a case where I'm hopeful/not hopeful. I don't want them to make a Joker sequel, and said as much at the time. It stands on its own and I think it would be better for it. On the other hand, if they manage to bring the same level of quality to the sequel I'll be right there in line buying my ticket.

So unlike the first, I'm not excited for Joker 2. But I hope its good all the same and will be keeping my eye on this one.

I was pleasantly surprised by Joker, because I thought it'd be an edgy "oh look how crazy Joker is! Isn't he whacky? Isn't he soooo scary?" - no he's just a wanker that would've been shot years ago, like Jared Leto's Joker. Instead, it was a comic book film without being a comic book film, and presented Joker how he'd probably be in real life: a tragic mix of an abusive upbringings, jaded/exhausted environment, self-delusions and personal awkwardness/terrible social skills that makes it super difficult for him to find friends to fit in with and nothing funny or entertaining about a seriously mentally ill man who snaps. Like the way we're led to believe throughout the whole movie that he's got this budding relationship with his neighbor that tethers him to reality, and it all turns out to be delusions in his own head and she actually finds him super creepy and frightening IRL is a great method of showing as such.

When I heard they were making the sequel a musical I thought "for real?", and I was even more worried when I heard it was Lady Gaga playing Harley Quinn...who is another character I cannot stand in her current media. But, they don't seem to be going for the "sexy and whacky punk girl!" angle (which I despise), and more the emotionally neglected woman craving some sort of attention, any attention, from someone, anyone, and this drives her into an emotionally (and probably physically) abusive relationship with Joker where she tragically equivalates his abuse with the love that she craves. You can water this down and play it a bit for laughs in a kid-friendly cartoon like Batman The Animated Series, but IRL such a relationship would be toxic, awful and beyond uncomfortable to be around.

However much we might sympathise with Joker/Fleck's past situation, a tragic reality is that more often than not, those who are stepped on become every bit as much of a nasty bully when they acquire power over others, and it looks like this movie might show that.

From what I've seen of the trailer I'm cautiously optimistic. That shot at the end of the lipstick on the window was fantastic.

Solid evaluation, BP. But I do want to argue one thing, and maybe it is me because I live with... well not the exact same, but I know signs of various things. It is maybe 10 minutes into the movie and we see Fleck sitting on the couch with his mom watching the night talk show with DeNiro's character, and then suddenly he is in the crowd and a fantasy ensues. That was exactly the moment it hit me: a large portion of this movie is going to not be real, and I was afraid to find out what.

I'm curious: how hard of a blow was it finding out it was all delusion after the fact? Because it sucked plenty seeing it unfold and knowing that it was 90% chance to not be real.

That all aside, sequel. I didn't get that from the trailer, and maybe it was only watching it the once and it was rather late at night. Did he seem blatantly abusive?

It's interesting that they focus on Joker and Harley's realtionship once again, after all these efforts to distance her from Joker and trying to show relationship in a very problematic way.

I thought the first movie was extremely good, but....more of a serious take, not so much a comic book movie, exactly. I'm not sure that I expect or even want ultra serious versions of the DCU in general, or even this sequel.

The first film's also not rewatchable. Great for one watch. After that, there's...not much. After the suspense is played out, it has little else to bring you back.

Bascially, I'm concerned that the initial premise of a deep look into mental illness cannot remain serious/good indefinitely while incorporating a bunch of more comic book elements. If they land it, cool. But I would not be shocked if it ended up being a cash grab that doesn't quite work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

I thought the first movie was extremely good, but....more of a serious take, not so much a comic book movie, exactly. I'm not sure that I expect or even want ultra serious versions of the DCU in general, or even this sequel.

The first film's also not rewatchable. Great for one watch. After that, there's...not much. After the suspense is played out, it has little else to bring you back.

Bascially, I'm concerned that the initial premise of a deep look into mental illness cannot remain serious/good indefinitely while incorporating a bunch of more comic book elements. If they land it, cool. But I would not be shocked if it ended up being a cash grab that doesn't quite work.

---

You are aware that the movie was just a WB property that they didn't think would sell, so they slapped DC onto it, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buufreak

You are aware that the movie was just a WB property that they didn't think would sell, so they slapped DC onto it, right?

---

Fair enough, I can certainly see that. The comic book elements are very, very minor.

But unless they had a truly unlikely amount of related properties that just happen to line up to the DC world pretty cleanly, that trick probably won't work super well for a sequel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Credence

I'm willing to give it a shot. I thought the first one was fine - good for a comic book movie, but I don't completely disagree with the critique that it didn't add enough to the better King of Comedy to be great.

---

I was thinking that the thing that might make this movie great is more that it doesn't add anything to King of Comedy and instead removes most of the substance to create a movie about a character who despite having so many potentially compelling reasons to be interesting settles into aggressively vapid desperation doing anything he thinks will get people to recognize he exists and give him attention. The whole situation just reeks as vapid and desperate despite co opting much more legitimate complaints and issues. Which is such a great take on the Joker, this over exposed character who once got called "hyper sane" because comic book writers are never as clever as they think they are and most don't bother reading up on much philosophy before trying to have him spout it on the page. Assuming all that is on purpose and the movie isn't just actually vaped and desperate. I can never make up my mind so I'm waiting on the sequel to shine some light on it.

This one really confuses me.

Joker as a character has no clear origin (minus the fall-into-chemicals bit). My understanding is that the "Arthur Fleck" variant was meant to be (not openly stated, more of a wink-nudge) not the actual Joker we know that ends up going toe-to-toe with Batman decades later, but rather an "inspiration" for that actual Joker, who leaned into clown-themed anarchy sometime after having either seen Arthur's very public execution of Murray on the set of his talk show or the riots surrounding it, which is further supported by Arthur being a contemporary of Thomas Wayne rather than his very young son Bruce. In short, Joker 1 was a wholly self-contained story and that character accomplished what he was created to do.

All that's fine. But now they're pairing him with Harley Quinn, who is very much a Bruce contemporary. Unless now they're going to say that this Harley is also a precursor, who then inspired Harleen? Or will Thomas end up being Batman in this continuity, a la Flashpoint? I'm just not really getting the endgame here.

I will say that the double-kick on the stairs and the final shot with the lipstick smile are pretty good though. As for Gaga's acting chops... I haven't seen House of Gucci but I heard it wasn't bad.

It's left kind of ambiguous whether he's the joker or his source of inspiration, but the actor himsef sees him as the Joker. Also, Joker is implied to be Thomas Wayne's son, so he's closer to Bruce in age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Joker as a character has no clear origin (minus the fall-into-chemicals bit).

---

Probably not even that. At this point, I think the Joker's backstory is that he was Jack Napier... or Jerome Valeska... or Arthur Fleck... or anyone else depending on the adaptation. In a multiversal story, this could be presented as Batman's birth name and background being a quasi-constant while the Joker is a wild card right from inception.

Quote:

---

My understanding is that the "Arthur Fleck" variant was meant to be (not openly stated, more of a wink-nudge) not the actual Joker we know that ends up going toe-to-toe with Batman decades later, but rather an "inspiration" for that actual Joker

---

This could still happen, though perhaps with the twist that Batman would consider Arthur, the man who ruined his childhood, to be the actual Joker unlike the copycat he is now fighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Precure

It's left kind of ambiguous whether he's the joker or his source of inspiration, but the actor himsef sees him as the Joker. Also, Joker is implied to be Thomas Wayne's son, so he's closer to Bruce in age.

---

Not that much closer though. Bruce needs to be what, no older than 8 for the Crime Alley* stuff? 10? Arthur meanwhile has to be in his 30s at least.

*why the hell would you walk down a place called Crime Alley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millstone85

Probably not even that. At this point, I think the Joker's backstory is that he was Jack Napier... or Jerome Valeska... or Arthur Fleck... or anyone else depending on the adaptation. In a multiversal story, this could be presented as Batman's birth name and background being a quasi-constant while the Joker is a wild card right from inception.

---

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Joker being a wild card I have no problem with. But Harleen Quinnzel is very defined, or at least should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Not that much closer though. Bruce needs to be what, no older than 8 for the Crime Alley* stuff? 10? Arthur meanwhile has to be in his 30s at least.

*why the hell would you walk down a place called Crime Alley

---

It wasn't called "Crime Alley" when they walked down it. It was called "Park Row" when it was called anything, although it was unnamed when it was first identified back in a really early Detective Comics issue. It became known as Crime Alley as the city fell apart in the wake of Thomas and Martha's deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Not that much closer though. Bruce needs to be what, no older than 8 for the Crime Alley* stuff? 10? Arthur meanwhile has to be in his 30s at least.

---

Joker from the animated series (which introduced Harley) was 44 years old. This would fit with a bit leeway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Joker being a wild card I have no problem with. But Harleen Quinnzel is very defined, or at least should be.

---

While my first instinct is to agree with you, the trailer already made her a patient instead of a doctor and... I don't know, I still feel like it can work?

This reminds me of Telltale's Batman games, where they completely inverted the couple's relationship.

Spoiler

Show

John Doe is a fairly harmless patient who the unscrupulous Dr Harleen Quinzel starts involving in her illegal activities. At first she calls him Puddin' in a condescending tone, sending him to get her a smoothie while the adults are talking, but he later "mans up" and becomes the Mr J. she can respect.

And it was still a pretty cool story. I only watched a let's play, though, because another Telltale game had already left me disappointed with their idea of player-driven story branching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Joker being a wild card I have no problem with. But Harleen Quinnzel is very defined, or at least should be.

---

I'm not convinced this is true. Harley has been pretty aggressively pushed and is risking over exposure. Taking a risk to redefine her and explore alternate takes on the character can do a lot to keep her fresh. I'm also not convinced this is the movie to pull that with either though. In part because I do agree with your interpretation that if this setting were to still have a Batman it clearly wouldn't be this Joker he encounters in his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonus45

I'm not convinced this is true. Harley has been pretty aggressively pushed and is risking over exposure. Taking a risk to redefine her and explore alternate takes on the character can do a lot to keep her fresh. I'm also not convinced this is the movie to pull that with either though. In part because I do agree with your interpretation that if this setting were to still have a Batman it clearly wouldn't be this Joker he encounters in his career.

---

She only has two mainsstream portrayals - DCEU and the Harley Quinn cartoon. I guess you can count Injustice as a third one? Not sure if that counts as "overexposure."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Precure

Joker from the animated series (which introduced Harley) was 44 years old. This would fit with a bit leeway.

---

How old was Batman in that show? He didn't seem like a teenager, nor even in his 20s like the Pattinson take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millstone85

While my first instinct is to agree with you, the trailer already made her a patient instead of a doctor and... I don't know, I still feel like it can work?

---

That's partly my point though. You take away her being a doctor and it already feels like she might as well be a different character.

(Though in fairness, her being a patient now doesn't mean she wasn't a doctor before - it's Gotham after all.)

In any event, I'll be waiting for streaming for this one like I did the last one.