|
Catwoman was made with artists, and they tried to make it good. No person unless you're those hacks who make poo poo like Sharknado, make things bad on purpose. It sadly happens due to many many many factors.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted: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. Remember that the original argument wasn't that Joker isn't art, it's that it sucks. It's valid to make an expansive definition of art, but what gets silly is when you combine it with prescriptivist ideas like "art doesn't have to consider context and cannot be criticised in a contextual way". You are then saying that *everything* cannot be criticised in a contextual way. If a dictionary can be art, then you can't use "art can do whatever it wants" to stop me from observing that it's an awful dictionary. Edit: VVV go read what I said again, I never said the movie isn't art, I'm not terribly interested in the definition of art question. I'm interested in the rhetorical shell game of X is art because everything is art, also you can't say Y about art, so you can't say Y about anything. That's what Vince is doing. If people can't say the film sucks until they see it, you can't say it looks good either. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 10:13
|
|
|
when did I say it can't be criticized? I'm just saying you cant say something is or isn't art. loving your goddamn toilet you poo poo in is art. Someone made that thing. crafted it. So you can dump into it. Art is everywhere. Also Joker looks p good, and you can't say it sucks until you see it. (unless you did, which fair enough)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
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. I'm a literature professor and this is complete nonsense. All art "considers its audience," that's what art is, an intentional object designed to be the object of some audience's regard. One way or the other it hails the viewer or the reader or the audience to say "hey, I'm here on purpose, pay attention to/enjoy/think about me." It doesn't just wind up in a theater/bookstore/gallery by mysterious happenstance. This is to say nothing of the absolutely crucial point that art is made by people who have biological person needs and consumed or interfaced with or regarded by an audience also made up, one presumes, of people. When I get something published it's because I want to get paid, I want readers to think highly of me, I want to communicate a point, etc.. By the same token, when I as an editor am deciding which work by other people deserve to be put forward to some minor public, I think about a number of things-- how good is this piece according to my own tastes and inclinations? Is it coherent? Is it polemical or didactic in a fashion not in accordance with my beliefs or the beliefs of whatever organ I'm editing for-- ie. I wouldn't publish a neo-nazi poem in a leftist literary magazine. I'm functioning as an intermediary between the text and the reader just as the text is in a way an intermediary between the reader and the author. At every step in the chain-- an author sitting down to write, an editor reading and evaluating a piece, and a reader encountering it at last-- the primary concern is expression, which is a trite word, but an important one, because you don't put that message in the bottle unless you want someone to find it, even if only unconsciously. A movie's not any different-- especially a major studio blockbuster movie. The Joker movie didn't manifest like ectoplasm into theaters out of nowhere. It got pitched to executives, it went through however many drafts, it was presumably focus grouped and edited and privy to endless discussions about every fine technical point. Again, at each point, the unspoken end goal of these decisions was the audience and how to get this movie, this text, to elicit the reactions its creators desire for it to elicit. It's a loving movie about the Joker, it's not worth rewriting the entire concept of signification and sign in order to write it a free pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 10:16
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:"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. Five thousand billion essays have been written about how irresponsibly vile the Black Panther film is because it features a CIA agent as a good guy. How is it at all bemusing to you that people might have concerns about a film that potentially exonerates white male fragility and violence? Moreover, how do you even know what the film's "right" idea" is anyway? What specifically is the complexity or subtlety that you're referring to? Have the folks white-knighting this Joker film seen it yet either, or are y'all just here to defend some arbitrary concept of "all art" being above social reproach which has absolutely never been true in the entirety of history?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 11:21
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:No art needs to consider its audience. That's some white bullshit right there.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
Hot take: its not. Unless your art is specifically saying “go out and murder!” Then it’s not the films fault people are too stupid to look at the work and not get it. If you saw Wolf of Wall Street and wanted that life you’re loving dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
There's in fact a spectrum between "a work that specifically says go out and murder" and "a work that explicitly criticises something so only some nutter will get the wrong message". Where a work lies on that spectrum, (and this position can vary by audiences) is a very valid avenue to critique something. I mean it's curious that you used Wolf of Wall Street there and not The Pursuit of Happyness. If your philosophy is that there's a black and white line between "specifically says murder" which is unacceptable and bad, and works that fall even slightly short of that ("not saying to do something, but hey, if you did murder someone it would be pretty awesome and you'd be instantly famous, eh") which is totally okay and you are wrong to suggest otherwise... Well, we've gone back to the "you can't criticise anything" assertion. Edit: like, think of those antisemitic movies that compare Jews to rats. A sane critique would note that this is aimed at audiences that see rats as bad and should be eradicated, and hence this is a call to genocide. Without reference to the common perception of rats you can't make this criticism. You can hardly interpret those depictions at all. Edit2: if someone is stupid enough to read the above and think I am saying Joker is exactly the same as an anti-Semitic Nazi film then *that* is their own fault Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 12:15
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Hot take: its not. I don't see why art, or for that matter comedy, should be completely exempt from the responsibilities normal speech has. Obviously some leeway has to be provided for artistic expression, but if your art is communicating lovely ideas, that's your responsibility, and if you angrily default to the idea that it isn't, then all you're doing is avoiding thinking about the meaning of your own work, which is a cowardly, privileged thing to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
The problem, as always, is Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
If toilets are art and I can complain about how certain designs of toilets interact uncomfortably with asses, then I can complain about how movies interact uncomfortably with a different type of rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
Children's books are art. I think they hold some responsibility. I think it's like telling an inappropriate/insensitive joke. No jokes should be off limits for a stand up comedian but if you're going out of your way to try some offensive material, it better be funny because people have a right to react in whatever way they feel. If you're going to make a movie like Joker in 2019, you better make it clear you're not inspiring mass shooters. It may not be your "responsibility" but if you're gifted the platform of "comicbook blockbuster" then I think it would be amoral not to consider the audience. (I wouldn't make the same argument for like "Funny Games") But what would I know, I'm a piece of poo poo who doesn't recognize the declaration of Art Law (1578) vvvvvv yeah it's still possible that the material is handled well and critics are just chomping at the bit to bring us the hottest/wokest/smartest takes but I think we're just not getting our hopes up at this point. Sgt. Politeness fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Just asking because I'm seeing a lot of takes out there but no one aside from critics has seen this movie right, like it's not out in Australia or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Gonna take a wild guess about the people coming up with anything they can grasp on to to defend the joker movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:vvvvvv yeah it's still possible that the material is handled well and critics are just chomping at the bit to bring us the hottest/wokest/smartest takes but I think we're just not getting our hopes up at this point. https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1167881690049470464 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI Review: Jojo Rabbit is great, but I'm worried it will make children turn into Hitlers. zoux fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Jojo Rabbit could be so easy to gently caress up, but maaaaan does it look good
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Bringing up the absolutely galaxy brain hot takes calling black panther CIA propaganda to defend similarly galaxy brain hot takes about a movie you haven't seen yet is some amazing poo poo. You are all coming off as Comicsgate style "Captain marvel hates men" people who couldn't shut up about poo poo they hadn't seen before it came out, and using the same exact thinking, just from the other side. I feel like all of you clutching your pearls about this movie, which is not out and you have not seen, would have been lining up behind Fredrick Wertham in the fifties going "Batman WILL make our children gay!" Then behind Tipper Gore in the nineties going "Prince IS going to turn our daughters into sluts while NWA turns our sons into murderers!" And then again behind Jack Thompson in the 00s going "GTA and Marilyn Manson ARE going to cause more mass shootings!" I'm not even saying the movie will be good. Maybe it sucks rear end, I don't know, I haven't seen it, and DC doesn't exactly have a great track record. But calling it DANGEROUS because it might somehow inspire shitheads so it shouldn't exist is right wing, fascistic thinking. It's no different than Walmart pulling violent video games which I'm sure most of you were calling idiotic a month ago when Trump was saying that was the reason his little Nazi follower murdered those people. If someone sees this movie and then kills someone they were simply looking for an excuse and were going to do it next time a "Stacy" or "Chad" looked at them wrong. Or the next time the leader of the free world literally encouraged violence against the opposition. Or the next time they thought they had a good target. Because people who are normal, and not violent incel Nazi fuckheads, don't shoot people cause they saw a comic book movie with a clown man in it, and blaming any artist for people twisting their work is dumb as poo poo. site posted:Gonna take a wild guess about the people coming up with anything they can grasp on to to defend the joker movie Also, you personally can go gently caress yourself with this poo poo. Fangz posted:If toilets are art and I can complain about how certain designs of toilets interact uncomfortably with asses, then I can complain about how movies interact uncomfortably with a different type of rear end. Is the toilet in a house and made for a utilitarian reason? Then it's a tool, not art and no one ever said otherwise. Is the toilet made as an art piece? Then it's art. But also, the toilet if designed to be poo poo in but then repurposed by an artist to be art, even by just the location of it being changed, is also art. Maybe look into Andy Warhol and the pop art movement and any number of modern artists or something, I dunno. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
You haven't seen it either dude. The reason we're talking about it is because we're going off the reactions of people who have seen it. You're the one challenging the validity of those reactions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Arist posted:You haven't seen it either dude. The reason we're talking about it is because we're going off the reactions of people who have seen it. You're the one challenging the validity of those reactions. I haven't. And the thing that started this argument in particular was a positive review of the movie saying it was complex and subtle, and some dumb rear end saying that because there are people who don't understand complexity and subtlety that it was DANGEROUS. Again, maybe the movie is bad. But it doesn't sound like it has set out to encourage violence, or idolize a mass killer. Maybe it does and the 85% it's got on RT is wrong and all the positive reviews saying it's deeper than that were written by alt right people who are now themselves buying an arsenal. But I kinda doubt it. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Arist posted:You haven't seen it either dude. The reason we're talking about it is because we're going off the reactions of people who have seen it. You're the one challenging the validity of those reactions. Also maaaaaybe the track record of how poor people are at both making an unsympathetic villain origin story and how badly people misread such attempts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Also maaaaaybe the track record of how poor people are at both making an unsympathetic villain origin story and how badly people misread such attempts. The first part we have no reason to believe is an issue with this film if you actually do look at the majority of the reviews, and the second is again not anyone's problem but the morons who miss the point. Should we get rid of fight club? Starship Troopers? Should the Colbert report have been pulled from the air? Are we really going to throw out satire and anything with more subtlety than a sledgehammer because what if the Nazis and other worst humans alive misinterpret it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Taxi Driver actually inspired a shooting, should that have been shelved
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Is anyone actually arguing the movie shouldn't exist? They're saying it's irresponsible, sure, but I haven't seen anyone trying to get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
I mean, I don't think it should exist but that has nothing to do with the content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Arist posted:Is anyone actually arguing the movie shouldn't exist? They're saying it's irresponsible, sure, but I haven't seen anyone trying to get rid of it. One follows the other. "This movie is irresponsible", there's only one conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
No there isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I haven't. And the thing that started this argument in particular was a positive review of the movie saying it was complex and subtle, and some dumb rear end saying that because there are people who don't understand complexity and subtlety that it was DANGEROUS. I don't think anyone is saying that it should be banned or censored, so much as "this looks and sounds tedious and stupid in the same way a million other drably 'serious' movies about white guys with anger issues are tedious and stupid." Irresponsible art isn't criminal and nobody is saying it is. To wit, afaik BSS consensus on Heroes in Crisis is that it was boring, incoherent, poorly paced, and, on top of that, told a muddled and arguably ethically icky didactic fable about mental health that, while it certainly wasn't encouraging violence or discouraging troubled people from seeking treatment, used ugly and inaccurate ideas about treatment in a fashion that felt ill-considered. Does this make sense? It's not "Heroes in Crisis causes bad behavior, so it should be pulped." It's "one of Heroes in Crisis' many problems is a troubling and unconvincing ethical position." This is how critique operates, by parsing out how a given piece of art slots into the world the individual critic actually lives in. It isn't and couldn't be done in a vacuum. Remember how silly the Gamergate "objective reviews" people were? So, like, perhaps in a world where alienated young white guys without a safety net didn't routinely kill people it would be possible to approach a movie like this without any degree of concern or alarm. And perhaps in a world that isn't in the middle of a decades-long and seemingly endless media saturation of very serious movies and shows about very serious and sad men pushed to their limits, accompanied by very serious and sad covers of pop songs, it would be harder to write this movie off based on it's embarrassingly terrible trailer. But we don't live in those worlds, and so critics and audience members have to make their decisions about this and every other text they encounter on the world we do live in. As for your Rotten Tomatoes bit, the 2004 Crash has a 74% fresh rating from critics and an 88% fresh rating from audiences. It won an Oscar for Best Picture. It was made with nothing but lofty and well-meaning intentions. But it still sucks, and it largely sucks because of how stupidly wrong-headed its politics are, and how shabbily they're conveyed. It seems strange that given the rest of your argument you find the snap judgements of critics to carry so much weight. Edit: Again, there's a spectrum of critical and practicable responses, and that you're unwilling to grasp this is baffling to me. Many people walked into The Dark Knight Strikes Again or V For Vendetta or 300 and left with bad ideas and dangerous notions, despite those being, to greater or lesser degrees, good-to-ok movies. Stuff like American Sniper or God's Not Dead explicitly set out to promote value systems and beliefs I consider dangerous and corrosive but again, is anyone trying to stifle these movies other than taking the absolutely normal prerogative to not buy them or screen them or whatever? Whereas, like, most film classes and film channels have tacitly agreed to quietly, for the most part, phase The Birth of a Nation out of curriculums, Disney has kept Song of the South under embarrassed lock and key for decades, and nobody is sitting around streaming Leni Reifenstahl documentaries for fun because they've so successfully and rightfully stigmatized and are impossible to watch without being drenched in their context as nazi agitprop. Saying that I think the Joker movie looks lovely and boring and irresponsible isn't saying I want every copy of it burnt and thrown into the ocean for god's sake. I'm sorry some of us don't want to watch some miserable mope slouching around hurting people for two hours. We've al already seen that one. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
you know youre a real life honest to god GIANT LEFTY when you: compare women, poc, and queer people with valid concerns about a movie about an incel murderer that apparently also might steep into ableism to nazis
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Wasnt this flick made by the Hangover guy? That's a pretty fair reason to not exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Wasnt this flick made by the Hangover guy? I’m not saying his sins are erased after how good Chernobyl was, but it does a lot to make up for them. Edit: vvvv ugh I was thinking of Craig Maizin who wrote it. So yeah forget it, Philips sucks Cael fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
phillips didnt work on chernobyl, that was mazin
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
site posted:you know youre a real life honest to god GIANT LEFTY when you: compare women, poc, and queer people with valid concerns about a movie about an incel murderer that apparently also might steep into ableism to nazis He's not an incel in the movie though. None of the reviews posit it as such. And the mental illness he has sounds like it's a thing others are cruel to him for and not a him problem. And no one has said he's a Nazi in the film either. Again, because real life Nazis might misinterpret it you want to... If my ban it... Do what exactly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Arist posted:No there isn't. Name another. What do you do with it if it's "irresponsible" if not ban or censor it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
zoux posted:One follows the other. "This movie is irresponsible", there's only one conclusion. That's the rhetoric of gamergate you are slinging around here. Vince MechMahon posted:Name another. What do you do with it if it's "irresponsible" if not ban or censor it? Criticise it. Don't give it awards. Make better art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's the rhetoric of gamergate you are slinging around here. Good loving lord. Fangz posted:Criticise it. Don't give it awards. Make better art. The argument of the critics thus far is "I worry this movie is going to get people killed". If you honestly believe that, than "don't give it awards" is a joke. Unless you don't honestly think it will lead to harm vs. people. zoux fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:He's not an incel in the movie though. i would ask if you had any self awareness at all when youre down to attempting to redefine the word incel regarding angry white men who go on to murder people, but i read your rap sheet and the last time the joker (while you were going by the handle, thejoker incidentally) was in a movie you framed harley quinn as a oval office who had her pussy lips out so im not sure if theres much if any good faith argument to be had with you site fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Name another. What do you do with it if it's "irresponsible" if not ban or censor it? Are you serious? What do you think the work of criticism is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:Name another. What do you do with it if it's "irresponsible" if not ban or censor it? Discuss it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Vince do you have anything to add to conversations other than pearl clutching about out of control leftists?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
zoux posted:Good loving lord. You can worry that a work is going to get people killed and believe strongly that censorship has a large social and philosophical cost and thus it's not justified to ban movies like this. It would be logically fallacious to, as you seem to advocate, believe that a work will not get people killed merely because you don't want to ban it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2019 17:42
|
|