- Registrado
- 28 de Abr, 2021
New Movie Night Thread - Every Friday Starting at 6ish
- Iniciador del tema Splendid
- Fecha de inicio
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
I just saw Joker 2. It was a horrendous piece of shit and I now officially disavow the Root Reviews (tm).
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
It makes the scene where he smokes in the first one and says “you wouldn’t get it” so meta. Upon a second watching there are only three legitimate complaints:
1. It’s a Batman movie!! It should’ve been its own thing
2. It’s got terrible pacing!! It’s a little slow but I think that’s intentional. I’d need to watch the first one again to observe its pacing but this one is meant to be a court drama. Of course it’s going to patter along.
3. It didn’t need to exist!! I said in my review that this was one of the reasons it wasn’t as good as the first. It’s a very meta and philosophical argument and not one that can be used to completely shut down a movie. Did ESB need to exist? No ANH is perfect as is. Did Harry Potter, a series with 6 sequels need them all? Arguably no. It might not be as fulfilling but the first book provides a suitable ending. Did we *need* Rocky IV? Absolutely. Communism had to be beaten, both irl and on the screen. Wait…
Did we need Aliens? Alien one is a near flawless movie (phew back on the tracks)
It’s a strange argument to put all your chips on, and funny how it’s only used as a cudgel if the product isn’t 100% enjoyed like cattle. I said the same thing about Star Wars VII when it came out because you could just watch ANH instead, and because at the time VII was astroturfed of course I was called contrarian. Guess who was the only one consistent throughout with Star Wars sequels.
Another rewatch has solidified my opinion that it’s a 7/10. It’s just not as good as the first, but provides a nice continuation in terms of plot. Did people actually expect the extremely mentally unwell man to create a criminal empire? Did people actually like the Joker from the first instead of empathize with Arthur as the man being eradicated because of the Joker persona? He was going to shoot himself on air. He has no greater message or idea. It was spur of the moment.
Second watching has also confirmed how intelligent the music is. The dual melodies with completely different purposes is revolutionary and takes the idea of a countermelody into a completely new plane. I hope other creators are listening to that and feeling inspired to create.
Cope and seethe at missing the point. Hootie tootsie, low iq cutie.
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
The biggest issue, in your meandering praise of the mediocre motion picture, is that it effectively resets the Arthur Fleck/Joker character. In the conclusion of the first movie it is astonishingly clear that Fleck has embraced this persona and the door is left open for further adventure. However, the director decides to spite the audience and create a shitpost in order to burn the money of the studio.
In a way I respect that. But what it ultimately boils down to is "I was only pretending to be retarded."
Disco Cutie. Jewie.
In a way I respect that. But what it ultimately boils down to is "I was only pretending to be retarded."
Disco Cutie. Jewie.
- Registrado
- 5 de Jun, 2024
Technically there is an opportunity for the continuation of the worlds story in a possible Joker 3 which would star the guy at the end who kills Arthur and then carves a smile into his face.
It could continue down the path of a gritty realistic Arkham and tie the story well into a continuous alt-batman universe. Cause in the end the mentally and spiritually broken Arthur was never "The Joker" we were expecting, he did however inspire many people to purse the "idea" of the Joker as evident by the masked men still rioting, and Arkham doesn't seem to be getting any better. The guy who killed Arthur also might become obsessed with Bruce, if he finds out the family relation.
Personally didn't like the movie too much, but it was enjoyable nonetheless and has yet untapped potential for continuation and improvement, or a trash fire.
It could continue down the path of a gritty realistic Arkham and tie the story well into a continuous alt-batman universe. Cause in the end the mentally and spiritually broken Arthur was never "The Joker" we were expecting, he did however inspire many people to purse the "idea" of the Joker as evident by the masked men still rioting, and Arkham doesn't seem to be getting any better. The guy who killed Arthur also might become obsessed with Bruce, if he finds out the family relation.
Personally didn't like the movie too much, but it was enjoyable nonetheless and has yet untapped potential for continuation and improvement, or a trash fire.
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
This is where my major disagreement is. Everyone latched onto his actions at the end of the first movie. They are considering him shooting Murray a character trait and some sort of climax of his character. It's very obvious in the first film that it was spur of the moment. His plan was to shoot himself after making it known how society has let him slip through the cracks. That they were condemning him for his actions (shooting the frat boys) when in context he was the victim. Instead of hearing him out they immediately attack him, say that he's a terrible man and that the riots outside are his fault. Arthur doesn't really see the riots as meaningful in any sense. He just believes it's people accepting him. He's a part of society.
This movie the only "reset" that could be argued is that they medicate him. Woah you're telling me the mentally unwell guy gets medicated and is actually more docile and withdrawn. Almost like his mania was the result of psychosis and he wasn't acting appropriately in the first one, and it wasn't some greater character evolution.
So many people saying "his character was ruined" would be the people dressed like clowns in the court room. They didn't care about Arthur, they don't care about his progress or him doing well. They care about the Joker. Arthur isn't the Joker. That's the point. That's what was intended, and so many people failed to pick up on in the first movie. That's why it now feels like a betrayal. You missed the point the first time around and so when it's extrapolated upon now it comes as some sort of betrayal. It's not. As Arthur would put it:
Shackling this series to the DC universe was a crime. So many people are going "tHe JOkeR WoUldn'T dO tHaT!" He's not a Mark Hamill Joker, he's not Heath Ledger. Once you start to make that separation the characterization is much better. Begrudgingly giving them the out of a New Joker being born was smart if they're forced to be stuck with the batman stuff. it allows arthur's arc to end, which is good because I don't think he's The Joker. He's Arthur.
- Registrado
- 28 de Abr, 2021
Was in the hospital for most of Friday and missed movie night. 
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
Then there's no point in calling it Joker? It's obvious it leads up to him becoming the character and by disavowing this you're Rian Johnson'ing the shit out of it.
- Registrado
- 11 de Oct, 2014
Almost the same, my mother is in the hospital and i missed movie night to visit her.Was in the hospital for most of Friday and missed movie night.
Hope you are doing better.
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
And? You can read every post and talk about the film with almost anyone and they will agree that between the two films the worst aspects are related to a good movie and plot being shackled to Batman. Who gives a shit about Batman? We've had him and the Joker in thousands of iterations with different motivations and plots.
"JOKER WOULDN'T SING"
"W-WELL JOKER WOULDN'T ADMIT HE WAS WRONG"
From The White Knight:
This is a stupid argument. Take it to the extreme. The first movie the Joker was a shit Joker since he had a real gun instead of a little cap gun that rolled out a piece of paper that said "BANG!" while sitting with Murray. Heath Ledger was garbage for not filling the hospital with laughing gas! Jack Nicholson wouldn't shave his mustache!
It's like the Bioshock Infinite "There's always a girl and a lighthouse" but instead it's "There's always a mentally unwell man with green hair and no he CANNOT have multi-faceted and complex motivations."
God forbid we tell a different story for a change.
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
If I made Schindler's List 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold and made it into a shitty musical that went against virtually everything the first film was about what then?
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
But it didn't go against the first film in the slightest. That's just bullshit people are making up. He's mentally unwell. He's not in control of himself. You all latched onto a mentally unwell person and now you're surprised when he falls apart. It's doubling down on a 4 because "i'm due for a win." The movie portrays mental illness to a T and you're just pissed that the movie has a realistic representation of you in it: Sitting behind the Joker in the court room expecting him to say something whacky and based, but then when he breaks down crying you get pissy because "jOkeR woUldN't cRY!" you get up and abandon the man he really was. It's a statement against the stigmatization of mental health, just like the first one was, and now you're uncomfortable because it rightfully pointed it out to you.
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
Wrong. Because at the end he finds himself in being the Joker and being an entertainer and accepted by the freaks.
(Throws chair across the room)
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
Like I said, I respect the director for burning the bridge. But as a consequence, this means that we really won't be seeing a proper adaptation of Mad Love in live-action anytime soon. And that's a great Joker story that got fucked with twice now, plus I think that could have worked (with minor changes) in Joker 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
The whole point is that he isn’t the joker. You’re missing the point and being mad about it. Arthur was accepted as the Joker, a role, but not accepted as Arthur, the man.
- Registrado
- 22 de Abr, 2015
But yet the man shirks what he was and embraces what he has become. It's Nietzschean.
(Throws two chairs across the room)
- Registrado
- 16 de Oct, 2020
An unwell person cannot find himself. He often latches on to the wrong conclusion and it’s important for a support system to try and help him when he’s lost.
I won’t be looking to you for support when I go psycho I guess.