There were a lot of elements I felt leading up to it. But loved how he shot the actual moment. It definitively was a oh fuck moment when I first watched it
This definitely hit hard the first time I saw it but there were moments even when I was drafting this script to screen when I was like damn..this is built up well. I didn’t remember this
The movie as a whole was quite good, but I still felt this one scene made the whole movie. The script said “the audience is quiet watching with full attention”. The same was true for the movie theater. Incredible scene.
@@thisisbs9775 my point is that the theater was utterly mesmerized, enthralled, and immersed - but I figure you knew what I meant and just wanted to make a sarcastic comment.
The script was always the weakest link for this movie I feel (and I love this movie). The most impactful part of jokers speech here is “if it was me dying on the sidewalk you’d walk right over me, I pass you every day and you don’t notice me”. It’s not in the script… Which likely means Joaquin came up with it
He definitely did come up with that one! I felt the script for this one was pretty good. It might not stand out as much compared to the other elements but very good on its own. I know after the 2nd part people started to see it in a different way…but I feel this movie was great in itself. Great build up, journey and character arc
I'm glad they left out Sophie's reactions from home. Not only were the reactions of the studio audience more than enough get the point across, but it wouldn't make sense for her to be watching a broadcast of somebody she's creeped out / unnerved by.
I don’t remember clearly, but did they advertise he would be on it? If not then logically she should’ve/could’ve been watching? But if they did advertise, I feel it’s debatable. A part of me would say yes - good they left her out…but then a part of me would think…it’s her easiest way of facing her fear…seeing what’s the hype all about.
@@pedroamaralcouto before folie a deux coming out I would’ve liked to think that he wouldn’t kill her as she’s done nothing bad to him. Almost everyone he kills has done something bad or suppressed him in some way.
There were some small changes in the dialogue and other details (the howl, the shot on the side of the head, Sally diving for the floor, second shot, etc.), as if decisions were tweaked while filming. The improvisations made it more realistic and Arthur more unstable. Since 4:10 it looks like he doesn't know what to do and he's thinking -- shoot a third time, say something to the other guests, dance? Also, everything about Sophie was removed. That made wondering if she was still alive. I assumed she could be dead.
@@andytrevino4077does it matter what he said, the point was to have a punchline which resulted in his death, u MUST be 14 years old the way you nitpick cinema
@@Punkfemboy Being 14 would arguably mean thinking this is the greatest film in the history of forever. The dialogue is needlessly melodramatic and whiny, and REALLY makes me think Todd basically just watched TDK and scrolled through Joker graphics on Pinterest for an hour afterwards before writing the script. So yes, it does matter what he said considering dialogue makes up at least 50% of storytelling.
My curiosity is how much of this was meant to be off script or not? Im seeing a lot not coming off the script into action, and I like how it turned out. Trying to add those missing lines doesn't fit well. Would that have been a result of on set edits away from the original between takes? Or would that be because the actors just said what they felt was right in the moment, getting the point of the script across, even if it wasn't word for word? I'm unfamiliar with that detail of movie making, so it's a genuine question
I know they spent quite a bit of time filming this scene, they probably changed little pieces of it each take and then edited together the most impactful ones
So typically, any dialogue improvisation - is obviously them going off script Then there are chunks where lines are skipped. This could happen typically when - 1) the actor skips the line 2) the co actor says his/her line early and it flows well as a reaction and the director decides to keep rolling and not calll cut. Often also hoping something interesting will come out from it he/she could use in the edit 3) the editor cuts out lines and dialogues to make the scene tighter The way to tell mainly is if a dialogue is changed mid-sentence compared to the script. If a scene is edited in a wide and then they cut to a close of one of the characters - the editor probably cut a line there. If there’s no other motivation to go closer on that character. Lots of permutations and combinations! But hope this helps!
I feel going off script works well only if you’re fully immersed into your character. As a director myself I get very frustrated when actors try and improvise for the sake of it rather than logically improvising on what their character would do. But when an actor is truly immersed, you get some beautiful moments out of the improvisations.
Hahaha. Even if you go in with the lowest expectations possible, it’ll still manage to disappoint. And more than a filmmaking problem it’s got to do with a marketing problem. Had to movie been portrayed for what it was things could’ve been different.
It actually started off very well with the animation and visuals and everything. Definitely added to the creepy feel and set the stage up. But a huge surprise as to how they treated it post that
@@BantermanBhattI just don’t like how they kill off Arthur. It kind of defeats the whole point of the character. It’s like you might as well call this movie the origin story of the man who inspired the Joker if he was never actually Joker to begin with.
@@MrClean21 yup. That was the nail in the coffin for sure. A huge anti climatic moment. Such a great stage set with part 1 only for this to be a very underwhelming arc..it felt like they didn’t get the memo whatsoever about what the excitement for part 2 was about
@@BantermanBhatt it's made even dumber because they suggest that the man who killed Arthur goes on to be Heath Ledgers joker . . . Even though when the first movie was made, Todd Philips spicificly expressed this movie being it's own self contained thing and not part of any other universe
@@saggyshaggy well there’s really no end to interpretations there. They’ll probably have another movie having us expect that only for him to die too and another joker pop out 😂
![How about another joke, Murray? | Joker [UltraHD, HDR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WbliHNs4q14/mqdefault.jpg)
"Joker howls at the moon" I'm so happy that didn't make it
“and it’s fucking weird” im dead 😭😭💀
“ you’re awful Murray…”
He told Murray he was going to kill him, and Murray didn’t even realize it
There were a lot of elements I felt leading up to it. But loved how he shot the actual moment. It definitively was a oh fuck moment when I first watched it
Love this scene, and I like that it feels completely unpredictable, even when I am rewatching it
This definitely hit hard the first time I saw it but there were moments even when I was drafting this script to screen when I was like damn..this is built up well. I didn’t remember this
The movie as a whole was quite good, but I still felt this one scene made the whole movie.
The script said “the audience is quiet watching with full attention”. The same was true for the movie theater.
Incredible scene.
It was definitely a great high point for the climax. Great way to complete the character arc
I mean what else is the audience supposed to be doing in a movie theater? Crying throughout?
@@thisisbs9775 my point is that the theater was utterly mesmerized, enthralled, and immersed - but I figure you knew what I meant and just wanted to make a sarcastic comment.
The script was always the weakest link for this movie I feel (and I love this movie). The most impactful part of jokers speech here is “if it was me dying on the sidewalk you’d walk right over me, I pass you every day and you don’t notice me”. It’s not in the script… Which likely means Joaquin came up with it
He definitely did come up with that one! I felt the script for this one was pretty good. It might not stand out as much compared to the other elements but very good on its own.
I know after the 2nd part people started to see it in a different way…but I feel this movie was great in itself. Great build up, journey and character arc
It’s also so weird that Joaquim’s brother did end up dying on the sidewalk. And that too despite being famous 😅
@@TheTenaciousDogthat’s probably why Joaquin added it
@@TheTenaciousDog I had no idea about this. Just read up. Crazy…
I'm glad they left out Sophie's reactions from home. Not only were the reactions of the studio audience more than enough get the point across, but it wouldn't make sense for her to be watching a broadcast of somebody she's creeped out / unnerved by.
why not? people do that all the time
I don’t remember clearly, but did they advertise he would be on it? If not then logically she should’ve/could’ve been watching?
But if they did advertise, I feel it’s debatable. A part of me would say yes - good they left her out…but then a part of me would think…it’s her easiest way of facing her fear…seeing what’s the hype all about.
In the script, Sophie and Arthur's relationship is real, and not a delusion - even if she does it out of pity.
@@BantermanBhatt But not showing Sophie since the last encounter with Artur, we wonder if she was killed.
@@pedroamaralcouto before folie a deux coming out I would’ve liked to think that he wouldn’t kill her as she’s done nothing bad to him. Almost everyone he kills has done something bad or suppressed him in some way.
DeNiro also add the "you're laughing, people are dying and you're laughing" which became a common phrase
He also says it in such a matter of fact way. Someone else could’ve really stressed on it. But just the way he delivers it works so well
Joaquin intentionally said "society" instead of system. he is one of us.
There were some small changes in the dialogue and other details (the howl, the shot on the side of the head, Sally diving for the floor, second shot, etc.), as if decisions were tweaked while filming. The improvisations made it more realistic and Arthur more unstable. Since 4:10 it looks like he doesn't know what to do and he's thinking -- shoot a third time, say something to the other guests, dance?
Also, everything about Sophie was removed. That made wondering if she was still alive. I assumed she could be dead.
I like how Joaquin threw out the cringy and unneeded parts of his dialogue and made it a lot better
W for skipping the Werewolfes houl😂😂
I literally just watched this movie for the first time a few days ago and...HOLY SHIT. I loved it. Especially the ending.
You watched the correct joker movie! 😁
This movie is a masterpiece 😊
You can literally FEEL Joaquin struggling to sell the awful dialogue in real time.
Fr
I Strongly Disagree.
@@mfliminal That joke he tells Murray right before shooting him reads like something a 14 year-old would've written.
@@andytrevino4077does it matter what he said, the point was to have a punchline which resulted in his death, u MUST be 14 years old the way you nitpick cinema
@@Punkfemboy Being 14 would arguably mean thinking this is the greatest film in the history of forever. The dialogue is needlessly melodramatic and whiny, and REALLY makes me think Todd basically just watched TDK and scrolled through Joker graphics on Pinterest for an hour afterwards before writing the script.
So yes, it does matter what he said considering dialogue makes up at least 50% of storytelling.
Why just why did they have to ruin it with the second movie. This movie was amazing and now it gives it bad reputation
How does the sequel ruin this?
@@gaynarchist because now people are hating on the original movie more
Just ignore the sequel and treat it as not canon, that's what I do
My curiosity is how much of this was meant to be off script or not? Im seeing a lot not coming off the script into action, and I like how it turned out. Trying to add those missing lines doesn't fit well.
Would that have been a result of on set edits away from the original between takes? Or would that be because the actors just said what they felt was right in the moment, getting the point of the script across, even if it wasn't word for word? I'm unfamiliar with that detail of movie making, so it's a genuine question
I know they spent quite a bit of time filming this scene, they probably changed little pieces of it each take and then edited together the most impactful ones
So typically, any dialogue improvisation - is obviously them going off script
Then there are chunks where lines are skipped. This could happen typically when -
1) the actor skips the line
2) the co actor says his/her line early and it flows well as a reaction and the director decides to keep rolling and not calll cut. Often also hoping something interesting will come out from it he/she could use in the edit
3) the editor cuts out lines and dialogues to make the scene tighter
The way to tell mainly is if a dialogue is changed mid-sentence compared to the script.
If a scene is edited in a wide and then they cut to a close of one of the characters - the editor probably cut a line there. If there’s no other motivation to go closer on that character.
Lots of permutations and combinations! But hope this helps!
Phoenix is known for his method acting and going off-script (Look at the scene where he imitates Gary after killing Randall)
I feel going off script works well only if you’re fully immersed into your character.
As a director myself I get very frustrated when actors try and improvise for the sake of it rather than logically improvising on what their character would do.
But when an actor is truly immersed, you get some beautiful moments out of the improvisations.
I’ll never watch the sequel & I feel bad for the ones who did. My memory isn’t tainted with whatever happened in apra poe duè
Hahaha. Even if you go in with the lowest expectations possible, it’ll still manage to disappoint. And more than a filmmaking problem it’s got to do with a marketing problem.
Had to movie been portrayed for what it was things could’ve been different.
then they had to make joker 2 the most pathetic cinema so peopel dont take the movies a little bit too seriously... we wouldnt want that.
It actually started off very well with the animation and visuals and everything. Definitely added to the creepy feel and set the stage up. But a huge surprise as to how they treated it post that
@@BantermanBhattI just don’t like how they kill off Arthur. It kind of defeats the whole point of the character. It’s like you might as well call this movie the origin story of the man who inspired the Joker if he was never actually Joker to begin with.
@@MrClean21 yup. That was the nail in the coffin for sure. A huge anti climatic moment. Such a great stage set with part 1 only for this to be a very underwhelming arc..it felt like they didn’t get the memo whatsoever about what the excitement for part 2 was about
@@BantermanBhatt it's made even dumber because they suggest that the man who killed Arthur goes on to be Heath Ledgers joker . . . Even though when the first movie was made, Todd Philips spicificly expressed this movie being it's own self contained thing and not part of any other universe
@@saggyshaggy well there’s really no end to interpretations there. They’ll probably have another movie having us expect that only for him to die too and another joker pop out 😂