View Poll Results: Did people overreact

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    33 94.29%
  • No

    2 5.71%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60
  1. #46
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Out of curiosity did you guys know Joker is no longer rated fresh on rotten tomatoes. Not really. Another prime example that the press failed on every level with this movie.
    Rotten Tomatoes has lost all credibility with me. It has never been the same since the Captain Marvel debacle. While CM was a good movie, overall, the changes RM instituted when that movie released in response to trolls have done nothing but damage their platform. Their critic and public ratings have been wildly out of whack since their policy changes. Both metrics also yo-yo quite frequent for any given film once it is released.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  2. #47
    (Formerly ilash) Ilan Preskovsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Electricmastro View Post
    I'm open to believe that R-rated DC Hollywood movies can make such intelligent-based examinations, but on the other hand, perhaps this sort of examination is better suited for documentaries if anything. There's definitely the possibility of entertainment being so highly prioritized to the people that educating the viewer, irresponsibly even, becomes less of a priority.
    No, sure, I hear you. And I'm all for popular entertainment exploring the big issues. Again, I don't think the film will cause any real-world harm and it's not really its fault if people use it as an excuse to cause real-world harm. Just judging it as a piece of cinema, I only think it's somewhat successful and this sort of blunt nihilism is something that I find fairly tiresome - but apparently millions of people disagree with me. What's really shocking is that to make a billion dollars requires repeat viewings from a substantial part of the audience and I have no earthly idea why anyone would want to see this more than once. I mean, it's not exactly fun.
    Check out my blog, Because Everyone Else Has One, for my regularly updated movie reviews.

  3. #48
    Mighty Member Blind Wedjat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilan Preskovsky View Post
    No, sure, I hear you. And I'm all for popular entertainment exploring the big issues. Again, I don't think the film will cause any real-world harm and it's not really its fault if people use it as an excuse to cause real-world harm. Just judging it as a piece of cinema, I only think it's somewhat successful and this sort of blunt nihilism is something that I find fairly tiresome - but apparently millions of people disagree with me. What's really shocking is that to make a billion dollars requires repeat viewings from a substantial part of the audience and I have no earthly idea why anyone would want to see this more than once. I mean, it's not exactly fun.
    I've read your other posts on the matter and I think the thing that could have cured this sort of fear you have (which I agree with btw, I never noticed that this movie making this much money with a character like this was something to be concerned about) is something I suggested before: Arthur shouldn't have been the protagonist of the film.

    Joker should have had a format more similar to Hannibal or the Mindhunter series on Netflix (which is fantastic and explores how serial killers become what they are better than Joker does), in which you have a person (presumably someone working with the FBI) interviewing the Joker. Or maybe multiple people interviewing or speaking to him (and that's how we get the unreliable narrator and multiple origin story thing). In Mindhunter, two FBI agents and a professor interview several serial killers (including Ed Kemper and Charles Manson) in order to understand them, and it starts having effects on their personal lives, their minds or their sense of morality. The main character of the show is clearly the audience insert: a younger, less experienced but brilliant and unorthodox agent that is affected the most mentally by the whole thing.

    Something like that would have worked with Joker. An agent of psychiatrist interviewing Arthur Fleck and being personally affected by what he or she hears about him (and maybe it is Fleck's intention to get them to feel sorry for him). It seems like a small change, but protagonists often naturally feel like the character to root for. By changing this, Joker feels less like it's trying to make you feel sorry for a killer and more like it's trying to warn you of one.

  4. #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,078

    Default

    edited post. nvm.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 11-10-2019 at 03:49 AM.

  5. #50
    Death becomes you Osiris-Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Memphis
    Posts
    6,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blind Wedjat View Post
    I've read your other posts on the matter and I think the thing that could have cured this sort of fear you have (which I agree with btw, I never noticed that this movie making this much money with a character like this was something to be concerned about) is something I suggested before: Arthur shouldn't have been the protagonist of the film.

    Joker should have had a format more similar to Hannibal or the Mindhunter series on Netflix (which is fantastic and explores how serial killers become what they are better than Joker does), in which you have a person (presumably someone working with the FBI) interviewing the Joker. Or maybe multiple people interviewing or speaking to him (and that's how we get the unreliable narrator and multiple origin story thing). In Mindhunter, two FBI agents and a professor interview several serial killers (including Ed Kemper and Charles Manson) in order to understand them, and it starts having effects on their personal lives, their minds or their sense of morality. The main character of the show is clearly the audience insert: a younger, less experienced but brilliant and unorthodox agent that is affected the most mentally by the whole thing.

    Something like that would have worked with Joker. An agent of psychiatrist interviewing Arthur Fleck and being personally affected by what he or she hears about him (and maybe it is Fleck's intention to get them to feel sorry for him). It seems like a small change, but protagonists often naturally feel like the character to root for. By changing this, Joker feels less like it's trying to make you feel sorry for a killer and more like it's trying to warn you of one.
    Who gets to decide what the movie should be about and how the characters are portrayed? Does the studio dictate this? And what director and actor wants to bow to studio pressure after the fiasco of Suicide Squad and Justice League?
    I seriously doubt Phillips and Phoenix would have wanted any part of a studio mandated movie. This may work for the MCU, but every time WB has tried to ape the MCU they have failed miserably.

  6. #51
    Mighty Member Electricmastro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blind Wedjat View Post
    I've read your other posts on the matter and I think the thing that could have cured this sort of fear you have (which I agree with btw, I never noticed that this movie making this much money with a character like this was something to be concerned about) is something I suggested before: Arthur shouldn't have been the protagonist of the film.

    Joker should have had a format more similar to Hannibal or the Mindhunter series on Netflix (which is fantastic and explores how serial killers become what they are better than Joker does), in which you have a person (presumably someone working with the FBI) interviewing the Joker. Or maybe multiple people interviewing or speaking to him (and that's how we get the unreliable narrator and multiple origin story thing). In Mindhunter, two FBI agents and a professor interview several serial killers (including Ed Kemper and Charles Manson) in order to understand them, and it starts having effects on their personal lives, their minds or their sense of morality. The main character of the show is clearly the audience insert: a younger, less experienced but brilliant and unorthodox agent that is affected the most mentally by the whole thing.

    Something like that would have worked with Joker. An agent of psychiatrist interviewing Arthur Fleck and being personally affected by what he or she hears about him (and maybe it is Fleck's intention to get them to feel sorry for him). It seems like a small change, but protagonists often naturally feel like the character to root for. By changing this, Joker feels less like it's trying to make you feel sorry for a killer and more like it's trying to warn you of one.
    Thinking it over again, yeah, I think that media such as The Silence of the Lambs and Mindhunter examine this sort of stuff in a more academic way.

  7. #52

    Default

    Joker was fine as it was. I got exactly what I wanted out of seeing it: A scorching examination of a doomed life. I'll probably never watch it again. It's way too painful and raw. I wanted to see what it would take to turn someone into the Joker, and this movie showed me. Anyone disappointed that he didn't immediately become the unstoppable comic version with a million brilliant plans, wanted too much.
    The woman in the shadows with the elegant sigh.
    What could a common man do to catch her eye?
    Her easy manner shames me, oh I hate myself so much!
    I tremble and I'm breathless and I'm begging for her touch.
    She sees my anguished urges but continues smirking by,
    If I dare to follow her, it's likely that I'll die.
    But even as she's feeding, as my body's torn apart,
    Will she think upon me kindly?
    When she slowly eats my heart?

  8. #53
    Spectacular Member Banner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I'm afraid I have been living under a rock what the Joker movie is concerned. What reactions?

  9. #54
    Incredible Member Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I'm afraid I have been living under a rock what the Joker movie is concerned. What reactions?
    None. Just some useless spin the press created to derail the film. Most did not fall for it.

  10. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    21,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I'm afraid I have been living under a rock what the Joker movie is concerned. What reactions?
    There was some concern that the movie would inspire more mass shootings.

  11. #56
    Spectacular Member Banner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I see. Just some tabloids talking about possible reactions because of the movie.

  12. #57
    BANNED Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    7,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I see. Just some tabloids talking about possible reactions because of the movie.
    Naw critics were saying the movie was an Incel manifesto. Which is rediculous,same thing that happened with Chapelles Special. Each critic was trying to out "Woke" the next. Iono but I'm a strong believer in not censoring art becuase of crazy people so I'm sure theres people who are on the critical side. But honestly I didnt see anything controversial in the movie. But I didn't even really know Incels were a thing so I'm not really well enough informed on the facts.

  13. #58
    Spectacular Member Banner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    Naw critics were saying the movie was an Incel manifesto. Which is rediculous,same thing that happened with Chapelles Special. Each critic was trying to out "Woke" the next. Iono but I'm a strong believer in not censoring art becuase of crazy people so I'm sure theres people who are on the critical side. But honestly I didnt see anything controversial in the movie. But I didn't even really know Incels were a thing so I'm not really well enough informed on the facts.
    I doubt these people even know what incel mean. Involuntary celibacy means just that, involuntary celibacy, and I'm sure every single teenage boy (and older) is familiar with the situation unless they are completely asexual. What it is not; a movement, ideology, opinion or philosophy.

  14. #59
    Incredible Member Gurz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    611

    Default

    OMG... i voted ''NO'' thinking like people overreated by thinking it's an art film and stuff... so i vote no, thinking it's an art film. No overreaction... but after reading the first post, oh boy... should i have read the first post before voting... lol
    Bad bad boy with a bad bad girl in a bad bad world.

    Favorite Characters:
    1-Batman, 2- Wolverine 3-Nightwing, 4-Darkness, 5- Blade

  15. #60
    (Formerly ilash) Ilan Preskovsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Handsome men don't lose fights View Post
    Joker was fine as it was. I got exactly what I wanted out of seeing it: A scorching examination of a doomed life. I'll probably never watch it again. It's way too painful and raw. I wanted to see what it would take to turn someone into the Joker, and this movie showed me. Anyone disappointed that he didn't immediately become the unstoppable comic version with a million brilliant plans, wanted too much.
    One of my biggest problems with the film is that the Joker is a more fascinating character when he a) doesn't have a definitive origin and b) is used as a reflection of Batman. Joker is just a movie about a murderous psychopath and though it's decent at that, it's not particularly brilliant at it either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Banner View Post
    I doubt these people even know what incel mean. Involuntary celibacy means just that, involuntary celibacy, and I'm sure every single teenage boy (and older) is familiar with the situation unless they are completely asexual. What it is not; a movement, ideology, opinion or philosophy.
    You're being a bit literal. Īncel culture" is not really about whether these people are getting any but is about their reaction to that fact. It's about blaming everyone but themselves for their situation and, in particular, becoming raging misogynistic assholes (yes, Incels are, by definition, men) who view all of their misfortune because of all those evil women. That is what's toxic about the whole thing, not that they happen to be celibate/ virgins/ in a bit of a dry spell. It's a vicious and ugly way of looking at the world and an entire gender that may not quite be an actual ideology but it's not far off. Being sexually frustrated doesn't make you an incel, using it as an excuse to be an unapologetic scumbag does.
    Check out my blog, Because Everyone Else Has One, for my regularly updated movie reviews.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •