|
Martin said that Marvel movies weren't cinema and more like theatre park rides (something like that). Cue social media going rabid,etc.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Old Director yells at cloud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
Personally, I will watch both MCU movies and Scorsese movies. Only few have this mental fortitude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
Shindragon posted:Martin said that Marvel movies weren't cinema and more like theatre park rides (something like that). Cue social media going rabid,etc. I agree with this, and not in a bad kinda way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
The man who put the last shot of the Departed into that movie should be taken with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
I saw Joker. It wasn't perfect and it had it's flaws, but I enjoyed it. Thing is, it could have totally been done without the DC elements and still work as a movie lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
Vandar posted:I saw Joker. It wasn't perfect and it had it's flaws, but I enjoyed it.  I'm still trying to figure out what was missing there. But for being Todd's -I guess- first drama movie it was good. I hope he learns from his mistakes, including learning to think before speaking because you might say a lot of dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
Shindragon posted:Martin said that Marvel movies weren't cinema and more like theatre park rides (something like that). Cue social media going rabid,etc. That’s true, but I don’t think they’re open yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Attempting to gatekeep what is and is not art is the most useless exercise in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
I just keep seeing Twitter building strawmans to throw Scorsese's filmography at. It doesn't irk me because I think Thor 2 is truly the pinnacle of art. But I think of a movie like Guardians 2 where it actually has themes and Something to Say (TM) under the bright colors and TASERFACE. It's just kinda unfair to paint them all with the same brush.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
It's cinema. It might not be good cinema, but it has all the elements of the artform. Maybe Scorsese heard about the Avengers and picked up a comic book instead and got confused?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
Dias posted:It's cinema. It might not be good cinema, but it has all the elements of the artform. Maybe Scorsese heard about the Avengers and picked up a comic book instead and got confused? No
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Vandar posted:I saw Joker. It wasn't perfect and it had it's flaws, but I enjoyed it. They literally admit that they saw this as an opportunity to get an art film into wide release. This could have easily had nothing to do with the DC Universe, but it would then have had roughly the same box office potential as You Were Never Really Here, Phoenix's last great movie about being an unstable killer. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Bored so watching Superman Returns. I'd forgotten how truly terrible Bosworths performance was. Routh better get a worthy Lois in COIE or we riot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I love how 20+ posts in this thread about valid concerns are easily overlooked when someone wants to continue bringing up "pearl clutching" as if everyone is suddenly Tipper Gore trying to censor true art. Yeah, obviously the media has been hyperbolic but some of us speculate because we don't want to pay money to go see a movie where they make a folk hero out of the Joker. How is this particular story any different from Clockwork Orange, Scarface, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Dexter, The Sopranos, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Casino, Goodfellas? The People vs Larry Flynt, Heat, Bad Lieutenant, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Punisher, Rambo ....? I could go on and on. A film where the main character is a bad/horrible person but is presented as the main protagonist (or occasionally even sympathetic) is hardly a novel concept. What singles this movie out for special consideration in this regard?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How is this particular story any different from Clockwork Orange, Scarface, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Dexter, The Sopranos, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Casino, Goodfellas? The People vs Larry Flynt, Heat, Bad Lieutenant, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Punisher, Rambo ....? I could go on and on. A film where the main character is a bad/horrible person but is presented as the main protagonist (or occasionally even sympathetic) is hardly a novel concept. What singles this movie out for special consideration in this regard? Probably because back then, those movies didn't exist. Now we have a million movies about lovely white men and some people have no interest in seeing yet another one. I said this before but if they had cast like Lakeith Stanfield instead of Phoenix pretty much all the incel controversy would have been avoided and the movie would have a whole new dimension about a further marginalized person on the fringes of society
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 13:41
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How is this particular story any different from Clockwork Orange, Scarface, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Dexter, The Sopranos, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Casino, Goodfellas? The People vs Larry Flynt, Heat, Bad Lieutenant, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Punisher, Rambo ....? I could go on and on. A film where the main character is a bad/horrible person but is presented as the main protagonist (or occasionally even sympathetic) is hardly a novel concept. What singles this movie out for special consideration in this regard? Are you genuinely asking the question or just making a rhetorical point that you think all these films are actually the same? Edit: quote:In 1985, Burgess published Flame into Being: The Life and Work of D. H. Lawrence and while discussing Lady Chatterley's Lover in his biography, Burgess compared that novel's notoriety with A Clockwork Orange: "We all suffer from the popular desire to make the known notorious. The book I am best known for, or only known for, is a novel I am prepared to repudiate: written a quarter of a century ago, a jeu d'esprit knocked off for money in three weeks, it became known as the raw material for a film which seemed to glorify sex and violence. The film made it easy for readers of the book to misunderstand what it was about, and the misunderstanding will pursue me until I die. I should not have written the book because of this danger of misinterpretation, and the same may be said of Lawrence and Lady Chatterley's Lover." Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
It’s different because it’s the Joker, people. You know, the insanely popular comic book character?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How is this particular story any different from Clockwork Orange, Scarface, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Dexter, The Sopranos, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Casino, Goodfellas? The People vs Larry Flynt, Heat, Bad Lieutenant, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Punisher, Rambo ....? I could go on and on. A film where the main character is a bad/horrible person but is presented as the main protagonist (or occasionally even sympathetic) is hardly a novel concept. What singles this movie out for special consideration in this regard? in addition to kms post, im gonna go with the demos of the the audience most concerned didnt have a voice in society, im gonna go ahead and guess that most people expressing concerns now werent alive back when those movies came out (im 33 and i sure wasnt), and they werent dealing with mass shootings by white men every three weeks. but then again anyone with more than two brain cells would realize this and this is obviously a bad faith post so i dunno why im replying in the first place site fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
The funny thing is, the movie just isn't good enough to earn all this back and forth. Perhaps, that's the Joker's real boner?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
Neither and both. Just pointing out that it's nothing new for people to start over reacting to a film (or any other countless forms of media and pop culture). I remember Ice T's "Cop Killer", the PMRC, NWA, KISS, Judas Priest having to go to court, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and even Midnight Cowboy, the advent of the PG13 rating, and all sorts of headlines over the years warning us about the dangers of works of fiction. poo poo, think back to the comics code to keep it on topic. I don't think the 2 points of your question are mutually exclusive either. site posted:in addition to kms post, im gonna go with the demos of the the audience most concerned didnt have a voice in society, im gonna go ahead and guess that most people expressing concerns now werent alive back when those movies came out (im 33 and i sure wasnt), and they werent dealing with mass shootings by white men every three weeks. but then again anyone with more than two brain cells would realize this and this is obviously a bad faith post so i dunno why im replying in the first place I didn't mean it in bad faith at all. Maybe it's my age and I remember a ton of controversial "dangerous" movies, books and music during my lifetime, many of which I listed and several more that I didn't. But thanks for basically calling me stupid for pointing out this fact I guess. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
So why are you saying people are singling Joker out? If your actual point is that actually all those other films had a controversial reception as well, why are you singling out people who didn't like Joker?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Again I don't know why people are conflating "this movie looks bad/boring/politically and ethically gross" with "this movie should be banned." You're citing NWA and Midnight Cowboy but like, The Birth of a Nation has gone from canonical to buried because nobody in 2019 wants to watch KKK agitprop. Ditto Manhattan-- even if we didn't know a thing about Woody Allen's biography it's still a movie about a lovable underdog and his endearing attempts to gently caress a child. You can't roll into a Barnes & Noble and buy The Turner Diaries because the audience for novels has largely decided, rightfully, that The Turner Diaries are repulsive. When Silence of the Lambs, an exquisitely technically well-made movie, came out, it was picketed by LGBTQ+ groups for what are now very obviously appalling and offensive representations of queerness-- and watching it in 2019 is very uncomfortable indeed, and quite arguably not worth it! And you know what--? I think the picketers were on the right side of history, because Buffalo Bill did inform cultural receptions of trans women for decades. Again, none of these involve the movies in question being banned-- obviously one can easily go find and watch The Birth of a Nation or any number of ghoulishly racist comedies and dramas from the early days of cinema-- but rather just audiences exercising their critical faculties to draw attention to ethically dubious elements of texts being distributed on a mass scale. This thread keeps getting close to saying that any critique or response to art with a moral valence is flawed or reactionary, which is loving absurd. To take an example close to my heart, there are hundreds if not thousands of offensive and reductive caricatures of queerness in mass media and to suggest that my proper reaction should be to just sit down politely and "vote with my wallet" is ridiculous. It's telling marginalized people to give up. Racist topoi in media are reduced by the vociferous activism of POC audiences and creators, sexist topoi are combated by elevating and amplifying the critical voices of women, and homophobic and transphobic content is countered by queer art and by queer audiences and ally putting their feet down and saying "gently caress this." And like, obviously I presume the Joker isn't explicitly sexist or homophobic, although from reviews it seems like it has some pretty idiotic ideas about race, but these things exist on a spectrum, and I think noting that it seems like a dull and vacuous exercise in a kind of angst already overdetermined and well-rehearsed in mainstream narratives doesn't exist on the same level as storming into a PTA meeting or whatever with a bull-horn in one hand and a Bible in the other. It seems boring-- it seems like its ideas about violence, and power, and isolation are just boring, and icky, like the little vaguely dusty black licorices from your grandma's candy dish. Distaste isn't censorship, and neither is critique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
I found this interesting and basically agree: https://www.facebook.com/24674986856/posts/10156278766436857?sfns=mo
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So why are you saying people are singling Joker out? If your actual point is that actually all those other films had a controversial reception as well, why are you singling out people who didn't like Joker? That's actually a fair point so let me clarify. I think we're arguing in circles. I'm only "singling it out' in the sense that it's going on right now and the current topic/controversial film playing in theaters. In fact, I tried to go out of my way NOT to single it out by comparing it to countless other films that came before it that sparked similar controversy in the past. Meaning I wasn't trying to single it out all. I even said that this sort of thing has happened probably well over 100 times through the course of my life across various forms of media. I don't care if people like the movie or not. If I "singled anyone it out" it probably has more to do with the fact that I responded to someone on the current page than any strong feelings I have about the movie one way or the other. Archyduchess posted:Again I don't know why people are conflating "this movie looks bad/boring/politically and ethically gross" with "this movie should be banned." Good thing I never said that then. All I said was, basically, "this has happened hundreds of times before" and "how is it different?". The fact that we've come a long way since Midnight Cowboy or Silence of the Lambs doesn't detract from me enjoying either of those movies either so...  BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
The most joyous part about movies like "Joker" is all the abled people who tell you that you should be grateful for films like it or that its unsubtle, poorly researched, obviously-had-no-people-who-were-actually-disabled-consulting-on-it depiction of mental illness isn't something you that actual disabled or aneurotypical people should take issue with, because "they were coming at it from a good place" or whatever the hell else they use to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
site posted:they werent dealing with mass shootings by white men every three weeks. I dunno about every three weeks but wasn't the 70's chock full of serial killers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:I dunno about every three weeks but wasn't the 70's chock full of serial killers? I don't know about "chock full" but yeah there were several and it extended well into the 80's. Zodiac, Son of Sam, Bundy, Gacy, Kemper, BTK, Wayne Williams, Dahmer, Ramirez, Green River Killer, Heidnick, Yates, Rifkin, Lucas, Ng, ... I'm not entirely sure why but violent crime overall is essentially at an all time low and serial killers in particular are virtually non existent. In the latter case, I think it has everything to do with cell phones, the internet, DNA and advances in crime investigation like that that tend to stop these people before they start. Harsher prison sentences have likely locked up several offenders that might have "graduated" on to serial murder. You'd have to be almost entirely off the grid to be a serial killer these days. If I had to guess, I honestly think that stuff like Real Dolls, internet porn and the dark web might also give an outlet for mentally ill people predisposed to this sort of poo poo to essentially keep them in their basements instead of roaming the streets looking for hookers and hitchhikers but I'm not sure. I've read other people who know way more than me suggest explanations along those lines and I'm obviously no expert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:The most joyous part about movies like "Joker" is all the abled people who tell you that you should be grateful for films like it or that its unsubtle, poorly researched, obviously-had-no-people-who-were-actually-disabled-consulting-on-it depiction of mental illness isn't something you that actual disabled or aneurotypical people should take issue with, because "they were coming at it from a good place" or whatever the hell else they use to justify it. how do u feel about the movie “identity” with john cusack
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:The most joyous part about movies like "Joker" is all the abled people who tell you that you should be grateful for films like it or that its unsubtle, poorly researched, obviously-had-no-people-who-were-actually-disabled-consulting-on-it depiction of mental illness isn't something you that actual disabled or aneurotypical people should take issue with, because "they were coming at it from a good place" or whatever the hell else they use to justify it. The laughter condition was actually spot on and a thing that does happen, and I mean it in the way Phoenix acted it (people who suffer from it do start kinda choking, because they simply can't stop to breath, and will indeed affect their social interactions). I can't talk about the suicidal depression part because everyone handles and feels it differently. There is not "correct way" to feel and show your depression. But honestly it seems they went full fantasy hollywood mental illness with the rest of whatever supposed conditions he had. Which is still so drat wrong. :/
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I just keep seeing Twitter building strawmans to throw Scorsese's filmography at. It doesn't irk me because I think Thor 2 is truly the pinnacle of art. But I think of a movie like Guardians 2 where it actually has themes and Something to Say (TM) under the bright colors and TASERFACE. It's just kinda unfair to paint them all with the same brush. That was my thought as well. "Don't make you feel emotions"? Well, the bad ones don't but there's some good stuff in The First Avenger and Ant-Man in between the action segments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Desperado Bones posted:The laughter condition was actually spot on and a thing that does happen, and I mean it in the way Phoenix acted it (people who suffer from it do start kinda choking, because they simply can't stop to breath, and will indeed affect their social interactions). I can't talk about the suicidal depression part because everyone handles and feels it differently. There is not "correct way" to feel and show your depression. But honestly it seems they went full fantasy hollywood mental illness with the rest of whatever supposed conditions he had. Which is still so drat wrong. :/ The suicidal depression part is accurate to my experiences. That's all I care to say about it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I don't know about "chock full" but yeah there were several and it extended well into the 80's. Zodiac, Son of Sam, Bundy, Gacy, Kemper, BTK, Wayne Williams, Dahmer, Ramirez, Green River Killer, Heidnick, Yates, Rifkin, Lucas, Ng, ... But there are definitely still serial killers, it’s just harder to keep that under wraps with modern technology
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Desperado Bones posted:The laughter condition was actually spot on and a thing that does happen, and I mean it in the way Phoenix acted it (people who suffer from it do start kinda choking, because they simply can't stop to breath, and will indeed affect their social interactions). I can't talk about the suicidal depression part because everyone handles and feels it differently. There is not "correct way" to feel and show your depression. But honestly it seems they went full fantasy hollywood mental illness with the rest of whatever supposed conditions he had. Which is still so drat wrong. :/ The accuracy of his disorder is "we read the wikipedia article". Like, it's a thing that exists, but that doesn't make it something that's written with empathy and anything beyond an abled person's understanding of it. scary ghost dog posted:how do u feel about the movie “identity” with john cusack Never seen it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:The accuracy of his disorder is "we read the wikipedia article". Like, it's a thing that exists, but that doesn't make it something that's written with empathy and anything beyond an abled person's understanding of it. I've seen the film and it felt empathetic to me. The villain of this movie is literally Reagan era cuts to mental health and social services.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:The accuracy of his disorder is "we read the wikipedia article". Like, it's a thing that exists, but that doesn't make it something that's written with empathy and anything beyond an abled person's understanding of it. how about netflix tv program “maniac” with jonah hill and emma stone
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I've seen the film and it felt empathetic to me. The villain of this movie is literally Reagan era cuts to mental health and social services. And yet, it's yet another movie where the natural conclusion of those things is violent murder. In this day and era, we don't need yet another story about how the endpoint of mistreating the mentally ill is them becoming the perpetrators of mass violence. Considering what is tacitly implied to be the final fate of Zazie Beetz's character, it's not as if Arthur's victims are all the 1 %. It's another monster movie where the mentally ill man is the creature to fear. scary ghost dog posted:how about netflix tv program “maniac” with jonah hill and emma stone No, I haven't seen that either. What are you trying to get out of me here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:And yet, it's yet another movie where the natural conclusion of those things is violent murder. In this day and era, we don't need yet another story about how the endpoint of mistreating the mentally ill is them becoming the perpetrators of mass violence. Considering what is tacitly implied to be the final fate of Zazie Beetz's character, it's not as if Arthur's victims are all the 1 %. It's another monster movie where the mentally ill man is the creature to fear. The film implies nothing about her. He realizes what the real situation is and makes a "I'm going to kill myself" motion. He doesn't lash out at her at all, and from other things we're seen, such as letting his co worker go, there's nothing implying he did anything to her either. You want to see that, so it's what you saw. The villain of the film is a lack of empathy and abandoning vulnerable people, and the consequences of doing that. The Joker isn't a character so much as he is the personification of ignoring social ills and doing nothing to fix them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How is this particular story any different from Clockwork Orange, Scarface, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Dexter, The Sopranos, Fight Club, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Casino, Goodfellas? The People vs Larry Flynt, Heat, Bad Lieutenant, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Punisher, Rambo ....? I could go on and on. A film where the main character is a bad/horrible person but is presented as the main protagonist (or occasionally even sympathetic) is hardly a novel concept. What singles this movie out for special consideration in this regard? There's no difference at all, you're right. There's always been controversial films and discussion about the effect it has on society. Trying to act like this one is any different because it's about The Joker is childish as gently caress. Also, if you're making a film about a villain it's the movies job to make him sympathetic. The whole thing is just marketing. Exaggerating controversy to make the film seem more important than it is. Same thing happened with Captain Marvel and the Ghostbusters remake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Nodosaur posted:And yet, it's yet another movie where the natural conclusion of those things is violent murder. In this day and era, we don't need yet another story about how the endpoint of mistreating the mentally ill is them becoming the perpetrators of mass violence. Considering what is tacitly implied to be the final fate of Zazie Beetz's character, it's not as if Arthur's victims are all the 1 %. It's another monster movie where the mentally ill man is the creature to fear. Yeah, absolutely. I think this is part of what bothers me about it, but I hadn't really zeroed in on it. A movie leveling a good-faith anticapitalist critique shouldn't need to mitigate and hedge its bets about violence by having it perpetrated by a caricature of mental illness. And it's not like he bones up on his Mao and organizes for the first hour and a half-- the movie doesn't have that coherent a political agenda. After all, he also shoots his coworkers, his idol, his mom, and again, quite possibly Zazie Beetz. It's a way of enjoying a frisson of transgressive timeliness while maintaining a fairly craven form of plausible deniability. Perhaps the audience likes seeing a bunch of finance bros get shot, but they can leave saying "but the shooting was done by a crazy, pathetic guy, so, it's not like the movie wants us to actually do anything or think anything other than 'tut tut.'" Edit: To be clear, I did go and see it this afternoon because I thought, hmm, I'm getting awfully judgy about a movie I haven't seen. So my wife and I went out and caught it. I... did not like it at all and her take was "please don't let the internet talk you into seeing a movie ever again." How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Oct 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 23:18
|
|