DC Cinematic Universe: Re-Reboot in Progress

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

No, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy were brilliant.  Todd Phillips applying that to the Joker character is not brilliant.

Yes it is. You have just stated it. An R-rated CBM-ish film; loosely based on a comic book villain; that isn't feel-good, goofy escapism; that draws inspiration from two Scorsese films (one of them a failure), was not exactly an obvious move when that film was pitched to WB. Hence the two years they took to green light it and WB's refusal to pay for it; meaning that WB would miss out on one of their biggest paydays in a decade. Brilliant. 

Those films you mention are 46 and 40 years old respectively. Perfectly fertile ground inspiration and adaptation.

And the film is great.

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

The Joker looked completely uninteresting to me and mostly still does (that most of the people whose movie opinions I fuck with think it's an okay Scorcese ripoff at best and shit at worst isn't helping my desire there). I haven't seen it partly because of that, partly because them deciding to use a Gary Glitter song while he's still alive, thus giving him royalties, pissed me off on general principles, but I probably will eventually. 
 

But, you know, at least they tried something. DC films have clearly been at their best by miles when not trying to cram a tone consistent for a mixed universe (that's not been helped by the bosses repeatedly changing what that mixed tone should be, but still). Black Adam looks completely crippled by that. They really need to commit to more films that are purely their own shit, not just Batman related stuff. 

Glitter is 78 years old and will likely die in jail. And supposedly he won't get shit because he sold the rights to the song a long time ago.

Man, for a DC films centric thread, there sure are a lot of people who haven't seen one of it's most interesting films. The 11 Oscar nominations didn't sway you? 

[Heartofice]

I wonder if the people who didn’t watch Joker, probably the best DC movie that came out in years, decided to watch garbage like Birds of Prey because .. politics or something.

Having said that, Joker isn’t a movie I have any enthusiasm to watch again, it was very good and well made and Phoenix is brilliant in it, but it’s not ‘the best movie ever made’ like a lot of the internet likes to claim. Compared to a lot of DC output ( and marvel) its great though. 
 

Which is why I wish WB / DC were doing more stuff like this and The Batman. Taking risks, not trying to stitch together a universe, just telling stories with characters everyone knows and giving us new takes on stuff.

Instead there is Black Adam and Flash and Aquaman 2, featuring a cast of problematic actors and bland CGI snore fest storytelling. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

I've determined that I'm reluctant to bash WW84 because I'm literally embarrassed for the people who made it. Thor: Love and Thunder is verging on that. How? Just how?

I'm also convinced that if we lived in a parallel universe where Covid never happened and WW84 hit its original June 2020 theatrical release, the critical discourse would have been way more brutal. The Green Knight would have opened 1 week before and in the weeks after, Greyhound, Soul, and Top Gun Maverick all hit theaters. We know how those turned out.

Birds of Prey is similar to the majority of CBM's in that, regardless of rating, it falls into the category of action-comedy. The problem is it isn't that interesting because it's just not that funny. But it has its fans and that's fine. It was OK I guess..

I'll probably watch Joker again soon.

 

[Ran]

I liked Joker, for the most part, but it was certainly derivative of better films. But at least it had some sort of ambition to it. I do think the critical reaction from the press -- at least in the US -- was caught up entirely in culture war politics that I don't think were actually relevant to what Phillips was doing, which was (IMO) only very superficially a statement and in reality was more just an exercise in bringing that 70s/early 80s Scorsese sensibility to a DC project.

This is the guy who directed Road Trip, Starsky and Hutch,and The Hangover, he's not some political bomb thrower. The fact that the rumored sequel is allegedly a musical shows he's someone who's experimenting with his film-making more than anything else.

[Heartofice]

I never understood the controversy around the Joker, it's connection to 'incels' or whatever, it seemed to be an almost entirely manufactured issue that had no baring to the movie whatsoever. 

Joker is pretty much King of Comedy with a hint of Taxi Driver, but thats ok, it didn't bother me. The best comic book movies are essentially pulling directly from other genres and movies and layering on a comic book aesthetic to them. Winter Soldier is best when its a cold war spy thriller masquerading as a superhero story, Dark Knight is best when its a 70's style bank heist cops and robbers story etc. 

I get the urge to put down The Joker and criticise it because it is quite derivative of some obvious examples, but I think that is mainly because it became so popular and praised, so it seems clever to point out why it's not as good as everyone thinks.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

On 8/3/2022 at 12:19 PM, Werthead said:

Given that it didn't really do that well on HBO Max, even after some surprisingly positive reviews (although most of them were more like, "well the theatrical release was shit, and this is somewhat less shit but also twice as long, so go figure,"), I'm actually really not sure about this.

But don't all major companies have a statistics department, or something like that?

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Yes it is. You have just stated it. An R-rated CBM-ish film; loosely based on a comic book villain; that isn't feel-good, goofy escapism; that draws inspiration from two Scorsese films (one of them a failure), was not exactly an obvious move when that film was pitched to WB. Hence the two years they took to green light it and WB's refusal to pay for it; meaning that WB would miss out on one of their biggest paydays in a decade. Brilliant. 

Those films you mention are 46 and 40 years old respectively. Perfectly fertile ground inspiration and adaptation.

And the film is great.

The fact your justification for its "brilliance" is entirely reliant on it being a good pitch to WB demonstrates my point.  Is Taxi Driver + King of Comedy a cool idea for a Joker film?  Sure -- and certainly it is right up my alley.  That's why I was excited to see it.  Then I watched it.  It was middling at best.  My brother - who has no virtually no strong political opinions and is even more Phillips' targeted demo than me - downright hated it.  

It was a vanity project for Phoenix to act weird that had nothing new to contribute.  Just watch the two movies it's based on.  Perhaps most damning, it's just boring.

[polishgenius]

42 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

11 Oscar nominations didn't sway you? 

Oscar nominations put me off films if anything.

[Morpheus]

This Zaslav guy is a real turd. A corporate robot sent from the future to sling content, push the margins, expand profit shares, shift the paradigm, create crossbrand synergies…he makes Jack Donaghy look like a regular patron of the arts. By this time next year, dropping HBOMax will feel as good as dropping Netflix.

 

[IFR]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It was a...project...that had nothing new to contribute. 

This paraphrase is my complaint of modern comic book movies in general actually. 

I thought that while The Joker was indeed a much lesser movie than the movies it borrowed from, it still worked well enough because of Joaquin Phoenix's performance, which I think really was worthy of the Academy Award he earned for this movie.

Reeves' and Nolan's Batman movies aside, The Joker looks like a work of genius if you compare it to any DC property that has come out in the last three decades.

I would even (some exceptions aside), extend that statement to include Marvel, with its amorphous blob of "eh" quality movies.

(As someone who complains about comic book movies, I'm guilty of having been reeled in to watch all too many of them. )

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, IFR said:

I would even (some exceptions aside), extend that statement to include Marvel, with its amorphous blob of "eh" quality movies.

I'd echo that. I can count on one hand, and maybe have fingers left over, the number of truly GREAT marvel movies. Almost none of them took risks, or are something that really feels unique or interesting outside of a few scenes. They are the very definition of mass produced fluff. 

Joker at the very least is not that, it might not be the most amazing movie on the planet, it might be less fun than watching Thor 84932, but at least it's doing something a bit different and pushing the genre. At this stage in Comic Book Movie lifecycle we really need things pushed a bit. 

[sifth]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Joker at the very least is not that, it might not be the most amazing movie on the planet, it might be less fun than watching Thor 84932, but at least it's doing something a bit different and pushing the genre. At this stage in Comic Book Movie lifecycle we really need things pushed a bit. 

Joker is a strange film. It's almost like they took a script about a man suffering from mental illness and repurposed it as a movie about The Joker. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie a lot, but it feels like a movie that wasn't made originally as a comic book film. In a lot of ways it reminds me of 10 Cloverfield Lane, where they took the story of a woman trapped in a bunker, with a man who may or may not be crazy and repurposed it as a Cloverfield sequel.

[Heartofice]

Just now, sifth said:

Joker is a strange film. It's almost like they took a script about a man suffering from mental illness and repurposed it as a movie about The Joker. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie a lot, but it feels like a movie that wasn't made originally as a comic book film. In a lot of ways it reminds me of 10 Cloverfield Lane, where they took the story of a woman trapped in a bunker, with a man who may or may not be crazy and repurposed it as a Cloverfield sequel.

Yeah and that is maybe what more movies could do. If all people want to do is watch superhero movies, then lets just make all movies superhero movies superficially, but use the genre to tell all the stories that don't get made people people only want to watch superhero stories!
 

[DMC]

36 minutes ago, IFR said:

Reeves' and Nolan's Batman movies aside, The Joker looks like a work of genius if you compare it to any DC property that has come out in the last three decades.

But that's not what we're discussing.  Is Joker better than almost all of the shit DC has produced since the Nolan trilogy - much of which I haven't seen?  Certainly from what I have (other than Reeves' Batman), and the overwhelming consensus seems to be what I haven't as well.  That's still a VERY low bar, and does not warrant throwing around words like "brilliant" and "genius."  (And to be clear, no, wouldn't call any of the MCU films "brilliant" either - although many if not most are certainly more entertaining than Joker.)

I suppose an actual genius can sum it up best:

Quote

Eli Cash: Let me ask you something. Why would a reviewer make the point of saying someone is especially *not* a genius? Do you think I'm especially *not* a genius?... You didn't even have to think about it did you?

Margot Tenenbaum: Well, I just don't use that word lightly.

 

[Myrddin]

13 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Again, "rumors", but apparently test audiences were confused by Michael Keaton's inclusion as Bruce Wayne in Aquaman 2 and this triggered Affleck's return. Why the hell would they put Keaton in Aquaman 2?  

I'm an avid comic book and movie fan, and I'm confused why Keaton is in the DCU.

As part of a Flashpoint multiverse thing, yes. As an older Bruce in a live action Batman Beyond? Absolutely. Bring it.

But as a replacement for Affleck in Aquaman 2 and Batgirl? Makes no sense. Better to bring in a brand new actor to replace Affleck than bring in one with so much confusing continuity baggage. 

Personally, I liked Affleck's tired, older Batman. Glad he's coming back. Now bring back Cavil. 

[RumHam]

It took me a while to really start Birds of Prey because it opens with narration from Quinn and I find her voice SO ANNOYING.

It's worth it for McGregor and Winstead though.

 

[IFR]

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

But that's not what we're discussing.  Is Joker better than almost all of the shit DC has produced since the Nolan trilogy - much of which I haven't seen?  Certainly from what I have (other than Reeves' Batman), and the overwhelming consensus seems to be what I haven't as well.  That's still a VERY low bar, and does not warrant throwing around words like "brilliant" and "genius."  (And to be clear, no, wouldn't call any of the MCU films "brilliant" either

Yeah, I agree with you here. 

[hauberk]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah and that is maybe what more movies could do. If all people want to do is watch superhero movies, then lets just make all movies superhero movies superficially, but use the genre to tell all the stories that don't get made people people only want to watch superhero stories!
 

I’m really confused by this. You pretty clearly don’t like super hero movies so your suggestion is to make the super hero movies less superhero so that things that could otherwise potentially be Indy darlings aren’t attractive to indy film fans, super hero fans (who already frequently declare “that’s not my X!”) or to mainstream audiences that are fans of big action spectacles?  

For me, this is one of the turn offs that has kept me from seeing Joker. Aside from having Phoenix in it (at least he’s not Jared Leto), it did not seem to want to embrace the genre and only use trace trappings to help support what would otherwise just be a Scorsese riff. Which is another turnoff for me - if I wanted Scorsese, which is less frequently than he makes a movie, I’d watch a Scorsese movie. 

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah and that is maybe what more movies could do. If all people want to do is watch superhero movies, then lets just make all movies superhero movies superficially, but use the genre to tell all the stories that don't get made people people only want to watch superhero stories!
 

You're making me think of Demolition Man now. In the future all restaurants are Taco Bell and in the future all movies are superhero films, lol

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, hauberk said:

I’m really confused by this. You pretty clearly don’t like super hero movies so your suggestion is to make the super hero movies less superhero so that things that could otherwise potentially be Indy darlings aren’t attractive to indy film fans, super hero fans (who already frequently declare “that’s not my X!”) or to mainstream audiences that are fans of big action spectacles?  

 

What I'm saying is that the state of the market is so bad that the only thing showing in theatres is superhero movies, then if we want to see a good Horror movie or mid budget teen angst rom com, maybe everything should just be superheroes and we would get them. This is all said with tongue in cheek, but there is an issue that the whole market has changed to the point you either do a big budget comic book movie or you spend almost no money and hope it goes on streaming.