Joker (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 19207
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1860s, New England
Master Virgo wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 7:20 am
Batfan175 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:55 am
Here's the thing: this is a superhero/comicbook movie that is a slow-paced, R-rated character study (no matter whether you think it is superficial or even good) without tons of CG explosions or even a happy ending...none of these things are what the general moviegoing public associates with comicbook/superhero films at all so to many people watching the film this seems new and potentially a bit more mature for the genre it operates in. People are not used to this kind of storytelling from films that deal with DC or Marvel characters and I think if people in the future try to do more character studies without big explosions and lots of CG effects acting as substitutes for character and theme that can potentially be a good thing, no?
Nah, the best two movies of the past 5 years are arguably Dunkirk and Fury Road. PG-13: check, big explosions: check, very little in the way of character study: check, happy endings for the most part: check.

A film doesn't automatically become interesting by the virtue of being edgy R-rated grim looking slow burn. The only question is, is it great cinema or is it not? That's the only metric that matters.
More like Mad Max Fury Road rated R: check, lol

As for what batfan means, he's talking about superhero films, the last profilic rated R one we got was Watchmen but in an entirely different climate

Posts: 2572
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Watchmen? Dude, even this year we got Brightburn and Hellboy. Last year we had Deadpool 2.

Posts: 4140
Joined: January 2012
Master Virgo wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 7:20 am
Batfan175 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:55 am
Here's the thing: this is a superhero/comicbook movie that is a slow-paced, R-rated character study (no matter whether you think it is superficial or even good) without tons of CG explosions or even a happy ending...none of these things are what the general moviegoing public associates with comicbook/superhero films at all so to many people watching the film this seems new and potentially a bit more mature for the genre it operates in. People are not used to this kind of storytelling from films that deal with DC or Marvel characters and I think if people in the future try to do more character studies without big explosions and lots of CG effects acting as substitutes for character and theme that can potentially be a good thing, no?
Nah, the best two movies of the past 5 years are arguably Dunkirk and Fury Road. PG-13: check, fast paced: check, big explosions: check, very little in the way of character study: check, happy endings for the most part: check.

A film doesn't automatically become interesting by the virtue of being edgy R-rated grim looking slow burn. The only question is, is it great cinema or is it not? That's the only metric that matters.
I mean, what constitutes great cinema is always up for debate and always changes over time sooo...

Posts: 12310
Joined: February 2011
1. Superhero films are not like other films?
2. Fury Road was 13+ in Canada lol :P
3. Logan, Deadpool films, Dredd or Kick Ass didn't exist? they were all better received than Watchmen.

Posts: 19207
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1860s, New England
Oh yes Logan, how could I forget. But I and I figure Batfan, weren't only talking about the R rating. Watchmen, Logan and this film are slow-burn superhero films, with a more inside look when it comes to the characters. With action too of course but that's definitely not the main aspect of those films.

As for that Fury Road being PG13 in Canada, so what? It's rated R basically everywhere else or at least in other major markets such as the US and Europe.

Posts: 15374
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
whatever doesn't kill you makes you edgier the movie

Posts: 1098
Joined: May 2012
anarchy wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 4:23 am
Batfan175 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:55 am
Here's the thing: this is a superhero/comicbook movie that is a slow-paced, R-rated character study (no matter whether you think it is superficial or even good) without tons of CG explosions or even a happy ending...none of these things are what the general moviegoing public associates with comicbook/superhero films at all so to many people watching the film this seems new and potentially a bit more mature for the genre it operates in. People are not used to this kind of storytelling from films that deal with DC or Marvel characters and I think if people in the future try to do more character studies without big explosions and lots of CG effects acting as substitutes for character and theme that can potentially be a good thing, no?
But have our standards been lowered this far? If a typical MCU CBM is 1 maturity on a scale from 1 to 10 (which I don’t think it is), this is just a 2 or 3. The Godfather was once the highest grossing film of all-time. It’s sad how the popular taste (if one exists at all) has gone down.
And the CBM thing isn’t just a package, it runs deep into the story. The Phillips “let’s make a real movie in the guise of a CBM” anecdotes are bullshit.
Our standards haven’t lowered, at least not much. The Dark Knight came out in 2008. The reason we’ve seen a shift in the tone of blockbusters is China. The Chinese do not care about themes of Western films. They want big CGI jokefests, and now they have the box office influence to steer studios in that direction.

Joker isn’t going to change that. What Joker can do is open a niche for mid–low-budget comic book films with more mature themes.

Posts: 8294
Joined: August 2009
Yup. Basically. Phillips had so much he wanted to say but he didn't know how to say it. And I think that's why it comes across as boring or hollow. The movie doesn't say anything. Pretty images yes but images mean nothing if they have no value.

Posts: 398
Joined: January 2019
Vader182 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 4:11 am
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 4:08 am
look everyone just needs to watch portrait of a lady on fire mkay
going a week from sat. seeing parasite and this within 24 hours.


-Vader
People in Cannes watched Malick's, Sciamma's, Tarantino's and Parasite in two days. The rest of the year must feel pretty dull for them.

Posts: 1098
Joined: May 2012
Artemis wrote:
October 11th, 2019, 3:36 pm
Yup. Basically. Phillips had so much he wanted to say but he didn't know how to say it. And I think that's why it comes across as boring or hollow. The movie doesn't say anything. Pretty images yes but images mean nothing if they have no value.
So it’s 2001.

Post Reply