|
Aphrodite posted:The general take is it's trying to be commentary on mental health resources in the US, the whole 'bezos guillotine' stuff going around social media, and incel bullshit. Time's review seems to want to slide right over those and focus on angry white guy. Whether it works or not they're divided, but they're at least not downplaying it. A movie's main character has to be a little bit sympathetic to hold an audience, but lionizes and glorifies is definitely not what most of them are saying. From what I've read on the other reviews, it does a poor job of not trying to make the main character, a mass killer, look cool. Basically it does a lot of aping Scorsese, but apparently Hangover dude never bothered to watch the end of The Departed or Goodfellas or Casino or any of Scorsese's films because he apparently missed the part where you show why the cool bad guy you've been kinda rooting for the whole time shouldn't be emulated (they get caught and/or killed). Like if Joker ended with the titular character getting the poo poo beaten out of him by Batman and thrown in Arkham, then it would be okay. Without that, the message is "Hey, white dude with mental problems, be violent as poo poo! There won't be any consequences and lots of people will love you for it!" That's the problem. [Edit: to add onto that, Joker also apparently removes the one "alien" thing about his character that makes him impossible to truly emulate in real life: the drop into the chemical vat that causes him to go insane. So he's more relatable than ever. Hooray for realism in comic book movies!] asecondduck fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Sep 2, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Rev. Bleech_ posted:I may be the only one in line for "Plastic Man Bothers People", but goddammit I'm a people
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jeremysmiles/status/1168234629507309568
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
asecondduck posted:
You're right, we should get rid of the violent movies that don't show things as being our Utopian vision, right along with the violent video games. Maybe institute some kind of comics codes as well, because people can be influenced by them too. Surely the issue is the media we consume, not you know, the leader of the free world being a white supremacist who encourages his followers to do bad things, or the fact that America has a loving gun addiction, or anything. It's that pesky loving Joker movie. I swear to god, and this is as a giant lefty myself, the left is so up it's own loving rear end with this one I'm amazed I don't have to look into their mouths to look them in the eye. E: This post might be projecting on to you poo poo I've been seeing on twitter the last three days, and if so I'm sorry. But my timeline is literally full of people who are usually loving smarter than this bringing out hot takes like "actually Starship Troopers isn't satire because some people thought it was being serious and actually loved fascism, so it is a dangerous movie too," and I feel like I've fallen into Tipper Gore's head circa 1989.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
asecondduck posted:Basically it does a lot of aping Scorsese, but apparently Hangover dude never bothered to watch the end of The Departed or Goodfellas or Casino or any of Scorsese's films because he apparently missed the part where you show why the cool bad guy you've been kinda rooting for the whole time shouldn't be emulated (they get caught and/or killed). probably watched taxi driver tho, which ends with travis being a hero and the hot woman lead getting into his cab wanting to gently caress him Vince MechMahon posted:You're right, we should get rid of the violent movies that don't show things as being our Utopian vision, right along with the violent video games. Maybe institute some kind of comics codes as well, because people can be influenced by them too. Surely the issue is the media we consume, not you know, the leader of the free world being a white supremacist who encourages his followers to do bad things, or the fact that America has a loving gun addiction, or anything. It's that pesky loving Joker movie. all i have to say about this is everyone ive seen raise concerns about having a movie more or less glorifying the incel murderer at this moment in time is a woman, poc, queer, or some combination of the three, and everyone who pushes back on that has been one particular type of person and i dont think its a coincidence site fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's not really DC Vs Marvel, this movie just sounds conceptually kinda gross to me It sounds not bad in the way I thought I did, but yea It still sounds pretty gross.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:they might be calling it DC Dark DC becoming a parody of itself is my favorite thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
Tipper Gore was right
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:E: This post might be projecting on to you poo poo I've been seeing on twitter the last three days, and if so I'm sorry. But my timeline is literally full of people who are usually loving smarter than this bringing out hot takes like "actually Starship Troopers isn't satire because some people thought it was being serious and actually loved fascism, so it is a dangerous movie too," and I feel like I've fallen into Tipper Gore's head circa 1989. OH WELP. I checked on Twitter and first thing I see is a screencap of what I assume is the take you are talking about. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
site posted:all i have to say about this is everyone ive seen raise concerns about having a movie more or less glorifying the incel murderer at this moment in time is a woman, poc, queer, or some combination of the three, and everyone who pushes back on that has been one particular type of person and i dont think its a coincidence Same lol. This seems to be a pretty common sentiment: https://twitter.com/robbiereviews/status/1167848751693795328 However reviews like this worry me quote:Todd Phillips’ “Joker” is unquestionably the boldest reinvention of “superhero” cinema since “The Dark Knight”; a true original that’s sure to be remembered as one of the most transgressive studio blockbusters of the 21st Century. It’s also a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels, and a hyper-familiar origin story so indebted to “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy” that Martin Scorsese probably deserves an executive producer credit. It’s possessed by the kind of provocative spirit that’s seldom found in any sort of mainstream entertainment, but also directed by a glorified edgelord who lacks the discipline or nuance to responsibly handle such hazardous material, and who reliably takes the coward’s way out of the narrative’s most critical moments." I'm tired of movies trying to get me to sympathize with lovely white men. It's not nuanced or groundbreaking anymore. The "nothing is black or white, shades of grey are interesting and compelling" would hold up if it wasn't a cis straight white dude every. Single. Time. Who coincidentally are going on very real rampages almost daily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:E: This post might be projecting on to you poo poo I've been seeing on twitter the last three days, and if so I'm sorry. But my timeline is literally full of people who are usually loving smarter than this bringing out hot takes like "actually Starship Troopers isn't satire because some people thought it was being serious and actually loved fascism, so it is a dangerous movie too," and I feel like I've fallen into Tipper Gore's head circa 1989. Don't sorry, I think that Starship Troopers is absolutely satire. It sucks that some people don't see it as such (and I acknowledge that irony is dead), but that's not the fault of the film. However, people reading Joker as a mentally ill white incel who learns that killing people is a healthy coping mechanism doesn't seem to be willfully dense misread of the film, since multiple reviewers have pointed it out. I do have issues with films that contain harmful messaging, specifically when it comes to alt-right tropes, because the last thing they need right now is further legitimization and justification for their lovely mindset--but that said, it's entirely possible to make a film where the protagonist is a person with the wrong, hurtful, harmful ideals (and even make them sympathetic) as long as by the end of the film you make it clear that the person is in the wrong. The Believer is a good example of this, in my opinion. Joker doesn't seem to have that ending, though, and that's why I'm worried. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 12:20 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Casting my yes vote for a Plastic Man movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Only if it's 100% a body horror.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
I would also take a 90's style Jim Carrey comedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
asecondduck posted:Don't sorry, I think that Starship Troopers is absolutely satire. It sucks that some people don't see it as such (and I acknowledge that irony is dead), but that's not the fault of the film. The ending has been out there for weeks if the leaks are to be believed and it seems like it ends with him locked up in a cell unsure of what's even real in a world made worse by his existence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
The problematic fantasy here is not "make the world better", it's "gain notoriety and agency". Also if the message is "lack of mental illness provision is bad", the argument "because mentally ill people are ticking time bombs of murder" is uhh Edit: Starship Troopers is satire but satire isn't a binary thing. There's elements in the narrative that play into the fascist message (in particular, the last third or so of the narrative, where our heroes are effective, the brain bug is made out to be horrible so that we can mock its fear, etc), and its critique of fascism/militarism isn't exactly profound (most of it seems to be "the military leadership sucks and get our boys killed") Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
asecondduck posted:Don't sorry, I think that Starship Troopers is absolutely satire. It sucks that some people don't see it as such (and I acknowledge that irony is dead), but that's not the fault of the film. rename it to Birth of a Joker
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
I suggest we all just forget about Joker and rewatch Starship Troopers instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
I am mystified by some of the assertions about Taxi Driver and Starship Troopers that are being made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I am mystified by some of the assertions about Taxi Driver and Starship Troopers that are being made. I admit I genuinely don't understand how you can watch Starship Troopers and think the message is "the military leadership sucks and get our boys killed"
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
I didn't say the *message* of the film is that, I am saying that the critique of fascism/militarism is shallow because the movie is almost entirely focused on the travails of members of the military. https://youtu.be/U_sZdX3tFFU anyway go watch Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Rudolph Herzog wrote a book a couple years ago about humor and satire in Nazi Germany. The standard line for decades of historiography was that satire was a dangerous, subtle weapon in an authoritarian regime-- telling the wrong joke at the wrong place could get you killed. Satire was a form of resistance and a courageous one. Herzog's thesis is different and bleaker and I think more accurate. Jokes against the regime could get you in trouble, sure, but most people ostensibly imprisoned or executed for satirical writing or performance were in fact persecuted largely for other things. Comedy movies continued to be made, even "subversive" ones. Newspapers and book gently-- gently-- poked fun at nazi stuffiness and stiffness. People chuckled to each other knowingly about the evil going on around them, and, their consciences sated, went home and did nothing. In fact, Herzog argues, it made those evils easier to swallow by making them look ridiculous and petty. A problem for another day, a cozy banality. My point is that evidence suggests that time and time again satire is a useful therapeutic tool and an ok way to pass the time but it's not a lever for social change. It's not an unqualified public good. The 19th century was saturated with satirical writing-- about abolition, suffrage, temperance, and a million other things-- but satire didn't get us abolition or suffrage. I'm tired of seeing "but it's satire" trotted out to elevate or excuse crummy or regressive art. I'm sure this Joker movie is finely and precisely focus-group tuned to hit all the winking satirical notes, but that doesn't make it interesting or appealing to me. I'm not saying somebody is going to watch it and think "shooting someone as a clown sounds rad, I'll do it," which I think is the somewhat reductive point some critics are gesturing towards and which some fans are hyperbolically taking from them, but like-- it is saying something about gender and entitlement and probably race in 2019, and it is pitching the sympatheticness of its character at a ~~**certain demographic**~~ and I don't think it's moralizing or school-marming to say "this looks like it will probably suck poo poo." I teach a lot of young straight white men and a lot of them are hurting. They don't have good apparatuses for dealing with or finding support for depression, anxiety, a whole host of other things. I don't want to say "the depression of young white guys is boring" because I'd feel monstrous, but I think as the popular camera's favorite thing to linger on with sickly fixation-- especially in this tediously defeatist "society did this, no choice, sorry" way-- it's time for something else. Fetishizing their alienation isn't going to help them, and force-feeding them a media diet of darkly romantic/bathetic pictures of themselves isn't going to help them either. I don't know. Let's have a movie about Toni Ho. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Sep 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:I would also take a 90's style Jim Carrey comedy. I had this thought too but all I can think of is The Mask and, while I like that movie, I don't need another one. I've posted it before but my idea for a Plastic Man movie is to have him be someone with no secret identity that actually enjoys the fame and attention he gets from being a stretchy weirdo guy. He embraces celebrity, does commercials, has a reality show, does the talk shows, has a podcast and YouTube channel, constantly shows off, is snarky about his sexual prowess, has groupies and rakes in cash doing appearances and poo poo and then reluctantly gets drawn into being a superhero somehow. The "how" will break or break the script I think leading into the third act. A Cronenberg directed Plastic Man body horror movie where he's trying to control his powers and basically melting all the time, popping ridiculous uncontrollable boners and where half his face is constantly sliding off could be really cool too like Rhyno said. Make it like The Fly where the dude is constantly morphing and increasingly unable to do simple tasks due to his condition. I'm picturing him waking in the morning completely flat on his bed while all his skin is oozing out all over the floor in a huge puddle and poo poo like that. Have him struggling to eat since his teeth are all soft and stuff. He struggles to even pick things up since his fingers essentially melt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Anything can be satire if you believe hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
A lot of this was covered by Doom Patrol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Sefer posted:A lot of this was covered by Doom Patrol. Never read it or seen it. Rhyno mentioned a body horror approach to Plastic Man and I thought it sounded like an interesting idea. so my wheels started spinning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
The more that I...well, I dunno about "grow," but the more time that I exist as a person on this hell planet, the more ambivalent I become about everything that the Joker has been, and has become, as a concept and an iconic character. Right off the bat the mental illness thing -- like the fact that he's so evil because he's so crazy or so dangerous because he's so crazy or he's so whatever because he's so crazy -- I realize I'm preaching a bit to the choir but the actual dangerous element here is that the majority of people don't actually understand that crazy people are far more likely to be harmed than they are likely to harm others. "Crazy" has become synonymous with "scary" in all kinds of media for far too long and the fact that this mindset does quantifiable damage in real life isn't just political correctness or leftist paranoia. Moreover, the Joker's persona as this mastermind strategist on par with The Batman himself simply reinforces the persistent concept of serial killers being savant-level geniuses capable of outwitting law enforcement at every turn...except the truth is that the reason most serial killers get away with it for so long can be blamed squarely on blatant police incompetency or wrongful profiling. The quiet man who always seemed so polite but is secretly dissecting people in his basement isn't actually some criminal mastermind capable of going head to head with the Benson and Stabler at the NYPD, it's because quiet men who always seemed so polite...and white...are usually the last directions at which the police are looking. And then we have the whole "Why doesn't Batman just kill him" issue which is my actual least favorite argument about comics, at least until I remember one that irritates me even more. Put it all together and it's like...I feel like the character needs to go through some sort of considerable reinvention before he becomes something I can appreciate again. I admit that the whole crazy serial killer angle has led to interesting stuff in the past and, poo poo, some people just write that sort of trope really well, but...I ain't gonna shed tears if we just collective decide to move past it for good. Now usually Brian Azzarello's work causes my hairline to recede and my skin to peel, but I wouldn't mind revisiting the take where Joker's just a really good mobster or whatever and the insanity thing is just an act he puts on...or, hell, just dispose of the insanity angle entirely and have his persona just be a persona he has because this is comics and some people commit crimes while dressed up as things and that's it. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Yeah just have Joker be BTAS Joker where really he's just an rear end in a top hat trying to get money
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/02/incel-violence-joker-rightwing-film-joaquin-phoenix lmao 'hey this film is about an alienated loser but it's also subtle and complex people are whining too much' I'm sure that everyone watching it will catch all of that. Yup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/02/incel-violence-joker-rightwing-film-joaquin-phoenix "Some people are stupid so all art needs to be sign posted as have zero complexity or subtlety so no one gets the wrong idea from it." - something that a person who is actually stupid might say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Well, there's art, and then there's blockbuster comic book movies. The latter isn't exactly "all art".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
All film is art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
Asking for no emotional ambiguity in the comic book movie thread is kind of an unintentional self-own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, there's art, and then there's blockbuster comic book movies. The latter isn't exactly "all art". Anyone who differentiates between high and low art is an insufferably pretentious piece of poo poo. Film is art. Games are art. Comics are art. If you don't think so what are you even doing in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:42
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Anyone who differentiates between high and low art is an insufferably pretentious piece of poo poo. Film is art. Games are art. Comics are art. If you don't think so what are you even doing in the thread. Saying a particular movie needs to consider its audience is neither saying it's not art, nor saying all art needs to have no subtlety.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Saying a particular movie needs to consider its audience is neither saying it's not art, nor saying all art needs to have no subtlety. you actually said it wasn't art
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:you actually said it wasn't art I said it's not "all art". Edit: If it's unclear, what I meant is that you can make a criticism of a movie, or a type of movie without making a declaration about All of Art. Misrepresenting a statement that a *particular movie* doesn't consider its audience's inclination to grasp whatever subtlety, as a statement that *all art* has to be unsubtle in every way, is rather a dirty trick. Especially when your position is that actually the rather bold claim that *no art* (which, by your definition, would include all movies) should make a consideration of the context it is consumed. Sorry if my statement was too difficult to understand. Fangz fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 09:30
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I said it's not "all art" No art needs to consider its audience. This is not a requirement of any art. It is not the point of art. What you’re thinking of is commercialism. Or maybe advertising. Those both need to consider their audiences. Art, including some lowly comic book movie, can be as subtle and complex as it’s creators want, regardless of people not getting it. Arts job is not to cater to the lowest common denominator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:No art needs to consider its audience. This is not a requirement of any art. It is not the point of art. What you’re thinking of is commercialism. Or maybe advertising. Those both need to consider their audiences. Art, including some lowly comic book movie, can be as subtle and complex as it’s creators want, regardless of people not getting it. Arts job is not to cater to the lowest common denominator. Given you also claim everything is art, are you really claiming that no creative work should consider its audience? So what's your POV on loss.png Edit: the other problem with this logic is that "it's not the creators fault if people don't get it" is that this is an all purpose get out of jail free that makes criticism impossible. You don't like Catwoman? It's just too SUBTLE for you, you dumb dumb Fangz fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
loss.jpg is a personal work done using an already established property that doesn't fit the mood/theme or feel of that piece. It's funny to laugh at, but it isn't invalid. It is art. It's the most purest kind of art. So.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 10:04
|
|