-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
DCEU Era |OT2| Joker's Wild
- Thread starter ody
- Start date
- Status
Picking and choosing. I brought this up in the review thread and it was dismissed.
Haven't watched that movie but think Killing Joke.
People on twitter saying...
stop right there.
Maybe that's the purpose.
OP
OP
Heh
And if people want to keep up with TIFF impressions
And if people want to keep up with TIFF impressions
I didn't realize until now Montoya is played by a 55 year old actress,
I don't know why they keep trying to push her as an older character. Gotham kinda did the same as well.
Guess im just always going to prefer her and Bullock partnership with him as the older veteran and her being newer.
I don't know why they keep trying to push her as an older character. Gotham kinda did the same as well.
Guess im just always going to prefer her and Bullock partnership with him as the older veteran and her being newer.
Joker clip incredible.
Jared leto must feel awful, I didn't hate him in squad but what a lackluster version compared to ledger and pheonix, if he gets a shot at it again he really needs to change it around from zany mob boss.
Yo mana was so delusional, its insane how he can come to the idea people were harassing him here. he just spouted BS nonstop about anything that wasn't disney and if you called him out on it he plays victim.
Jared leto must feel awful, I didn't hate him in squad but what a lackluster version compared to ledger and pheonix, if he gets a shot at it again he really needs to change it around from zany mob boss.
Yo mana was so delusional, its insane how he can come to the idea people were harassing him here. he just spouted BS nonstop about anything that wasn't disney and if you called him out on it he plays victim.
Last edited:
I haven't watched those clips, but aren't they from the climax of the film? Surprised that people would spoil some of the best parts of the film for themselves.
What makes the movie great is the slow buildup to those scenes.
What makes the movie great is the slow buildup to those scenes.
Last edited:
Ehhh depends. Some people are able to spoil themselves, yet still enjoy the movie just as much. I know I'm one of them. Tho i didn't see the clip, i do know what happens, and I'm excited to see what gets us there.
It's inevitable, but I don't like comparing this Joker to other Jokers. Leto's Joker is a side character with like 5 minutes of screentime. Phoenix's Joker is his own movie, unrestricted by a PG-13 rating or having to play by any rules of canon... Technically, he's not even the Joker. Even to Ledger and Nicholson it's an unfair comparison.
Having said that, we probably won't be getting a Joker on this level until the day there's an R or TV-MA Batman series. Hopefully this movie's success helps greenlight something like that in the future. Because canon or not, the character's always had this in him. Whatever he does in 'Joker', he's probably already done in some panels (and worse.) Batman movies just couldn't portray him this graphically.
Wait to see the dream sequence where he teleports behind himself and says "Trust Nobody, Not Even Yourself"
That joker topic is something else. So many people with agendas. The loudest ones always seem like they post a lot in you know what threads.
I unashamedly love his Lex. And I think the rooftop scenes are absolutely brilliant.
Same. Really wish we could've gotten his Legion of Doom.
He got a Razzie nomination which is the true kino award.
Someday maybe I'll understand why people think Eisenberg's shitty Heath Ledger Joker Act was a good Lex performance. Because that shit was pure Silver Age cringe, beloved by people who shittalk the Donner films.
Don't see why people think this movie is going to inspire incels when Trump's twitter account is already doing that and is free.
Maybe its because I'm indifferent to Lex as a character that them changing him didnt bother me in the least.
I thought he was good in the role as it was written. And I just liked the take on him. I thought Jesse gave a great performance for what it was. But I'm also a snyder fan and an eisenberg fan so.
Loved the rooftop scene, loved the red capes are coming scene, loved the bells have been rung scene and I loved his theme music.
If his character was called something else would people still hate him?
I thought he was good in the role as it was written. And I just liked the take on him. I thought Jesse gave a great performance for what it was. But I'm also a snyder fan and an eisenberg fan so.
Loved the rooftop scene, loved the red capes are coming scene, loved the bells have been rung scene and I loved his theme music.
If his character was called something else would people still hate him?
I wish I could read that thread but I dont want to be spoiled. The insanity and hysteria surrounding his film is something to behold. Between the spidey news and this film the MCU/Disney fans sure are having a moment.
And I bet Todd and Joaquin are loving it.
And I bet Todd and Joaquin are loving it.
Man people freakin about this movie, I wonder what would they think about the shit that he does in the comics.
All these pearl clutchers are just hyping the movie even more. Can't beat all the free press.
Not if they called him the Riddler. He would've been fucking perfect in that role.
I dont know where else to say this, and as someone who thinks the last thing this forum needs is more moderation it's strange to say. But keeping in line with the modding style attempting to want to elicit discussion.
The discourse in threads would be better if the following words were banned.
Oof
Yikes
Edgy
Edgelord
The discourse in threads would be better if the following words were banned.
Oof
Yikes
Edgy
Edgelord
And they're usually the top posted in that thread too which is interesting..
As expected, more "this movie is bad for society" takes. I understand why people might have that idea but unfortunately them complaining about it leads to demented individuals taking advantage of the situation. So instead of blaming the abundance and easy access of guns or the lack of mental health care future mass murderers can just say "well joker made me do it." It's just so stupid.
At least these critics might feel vindicated though... which is probably what they want to feel right now.
And to think, the movie just needed Batman to show up near the end and beat the crap out of Joker. That would teach all incels not to commit mass murder, or else face the wrath of Batman.
Folks, clearly the problem isn't the ability to grab an AR-15 in an afternoon and then buy 1,000 rounds of ammunition online, it's the Joker getting his own film.
It's amazing to see the left starting to pick up on this "media causes violence" playbook from the right.
It's amazing to see the left starting to pick up on this "media causes violence" playbook from the right.
It's less "media causes violence" and more, "Hey, what is your movie putting out there?" IT Chapter 2 begins with a much-talked about hate crime for example, and part of the conversation has been on the necessary nature of it in the film, and how that portrayal was handled. People of course go back and forth on that.
The Joker thing has largely been about how his motivations line up with similar real-world ideologies. And the question is: what does it say about them? Given that it's somewhat sympathetic, does it say "Hey, that's a perfectly valid and understandable way to be?" Does it give a pass in presentation? Which is probably the spot that some critics have issue with.
See also: Three Billboards and the conversation around a more sympathetic portrayal of racism. Which is to say, they made a serious film. This is the big boy pond. Welcome to the conversations.
The Joker thing has largely been about how his motivations line up with similar real-world ideologies. And the question is: what does it say about them? Given that it's somewhat sympathetic, does it say "Hey, that's a perfectly valid and understandable way to be?" Does it give a pass in presentation? Which is probably the spot that some critics have issue with.
See also: Three Billboards and the conversation around a more sympathetic portrayal of racism. Which is to say, they made a serious film. This is the big boy pond. Welcome to the conversations.
I'm going to jump into this thread, to say I agree with you for the most part.
Except almost all of those discussions happened after the films were released and people could have a proper discussion about their context. So much of the Joker's discourse is from a large portion of people who haven't seen the film. And started long before people had. And I think that's why it feels odd/off to me.
Like it feels more like concern trolling than a legitimate debate because so few can actually say seen the film and its context.
To be fair it does seem like Todd Phillip's intention was to make the Joker into an sympathetic character who acted out his impulses as a result of how society treated him, that's definitely not ok in the real world but this is just a film and anyone who takes inspiration from the Joker is already a sick individual.
I personally don't feel that a movie should be judged on its morality but rather on whether it gets its creative vision across and based on what Todd Phillips said his intention was to make Joker sympathetic at the start of the movie but as the movie progresses he commits acts that most people will find repulsive and unjustifiable. It doesn't explicitly point those out of course, most people should already know that it's wrong to be a murderer.
I'd agree for those in our threads, which is why I always tell y'all not to read them. (See also: Star Wars threads dealing with TLJ!) I was addressing the critical reception.
Right, but is a movie's aim is directly racist and that was its aim, do you give it a pass? Of course not. Take the original Birth of a Nation, as an extreme example, or perhaps Clint Eastwood's The Mule as a lighter, more recent one. Again, this talk is less about Joker in and of itself, and more talking about some of these arguments. Which is to say, critically, these discussions are going to be had, and some may in fact have very stark responses, especially if sexual violence is a part of the film. (Most reports do not mentioned this about Joker. Again, bigger picture talk here.)
Last edited:
That is a very good point you raise. I just find the critical reception for this movie to be fascinating. Some critics have pointed out that maybe the movie doesn't really go far enough and that I assume is what you mentioned in relation to sexual violence. I think the movie completely avoids that in order to not be even more controversial.
I understand and I'm fine with having long-form critical analysis and discussions. However, I bring it up because of a unique situation I found myself in the other night. I work third shift and my co-worker was watching some trash right-wing show that was on at 2am or whatever. One of the segments was on violence in the media and they were blaming Hollywood for it's impact on gun violence in America (someone had a eureka moment and got video games into the discussion for good measure). I just happened to be reading the Joker thread and it was like an echo chamber at times between what I was hearing and what I was reading.
Don't stoop to that level of pearl clutching moral panic, because it just reinforces the right's position that guns aren't the problem -- which I think is a far more dangerous long-term issue than this film or others.
I think the issue is that a lot of critics are just people and are susceptible to having agendas. And some of these negative reviews dont read like they came from a place of good faith. They read like long forum posts by somebody with an axe to grind, that had their mind made up before seeing the film.
- Status