Did people overreact to JOKER?

[Celgress]

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.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

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.

[Blind Wedjat]

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.

[Agent Z]

edited post. nvm.

[Osiris-Rex]

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.

[Electricmastro]

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.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

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.

[Banner]

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

[Beaddle]

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.

[Agent Z]

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.

[Banner]

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

[Midvillian1322]

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.

[Banner]

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.

[Gurz]

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

[Ilan Preskovsky]

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.

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. Ïncel 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.