Quote:
Originally Posted by FAX
I don't disagree, Mr. listopencil. Not really ...
However, it does seem like one of those "square peg/round hole" problems. And, undoubtedly, we've all had a few of those.
First of all, I don't think people would be overly concerned about (or desirous of) a multi-film story featuring Joker had Marvel Studios not become more wealthy than 180 countries in a brief, 10-year span. Fans and producers might not even think about it. I mean, what Marvel pulled off was (and remains) somewhat unique in cinematic history. That accomplishment created a new context and fosters a new conversation and high expectations.
One also has to keep in mind that, since the Joker character is so historic and so beloved and so significant (to so many fans), one has to tread lightly to avoid market alienation and the perception of artistic compromise. This film "might" serve as a foundational piece but I don't think it was intended as such and, therefore, isn't an ideal cornerstone.
Not to say that it couldn't be done.
I think we know that a film crusade akin to Marvel must be built on a solid substructure from the outset. The first movie has to resonate and the subsequent films have to both elaborate and enhance. You can have an occasional "dud", but you can't let go of the thread entirely ... else you lose the entire tapestry ... and the box-office.
Ergo, the problem.
Ledger's Joker is gone forever because Ledger is gone forever. Phoenix's Joker is essentially incompatible with an "Origin of Batman" storyline because the timelines don't sync and Joker would be 70 years old before his first Batman encounter. That won't fly.
The only way to do this is to proceed with your suggestion. Yet, that leads to the potential of multiple Jokers emerging from some sort of Joker Cult or Joker Crime Family or Joker Fan Club which invalidates (probably) 90% of the fans' various preconceptions of Joker's history, background, and motivation.
It's possible ... but I'm not sure the odds of success are all that great. I'd like to see them try, though.
FAX
|
Sure. I'm just daydreaming about ways that they could keep moving forward with the various character's franchises and possibly weave them all together. Each one brings its own set of problems. You have Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and she's great in the role - probably the best situation out of all of them and they're going to need to keep pumping out decent movies with her or they'll lose steam. Aquaman is surprisingly (to me) adequate and maybe they can sell him as Underwater Thor. The rest are, pretty much, crap on the big screen so far. They need a new Batman, or someone to start off as Robin and turn into Batman as Batfleck is dealt some sort of terminal blow onscreen - that might make a decent soft reboot if Cult Joker kills him and Robin becomes New Batman. Superman is a boring character and I don't know if they even have anyone to play him. Cyborg/Flash? Blah.
If they are going push this Justice League idea then they have a lot of work to do, and it doesn't look good so far. As of right now I'd only be interested in these movies: Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. The Death of Batfleck. Aquaman is Underwater Thor. I think it's more likely that Pheonix Joker is either just a one off or will exist entirely in its own universe, unfortunately.