Jump to content

DC Cinematic Universe: Re-Reboot in Progress


Myrddin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.

I don’t know where you live, but looking at what’s currently on screen where I live  2/19 (maybe 4 if you count Minions and Everything All at Once - showing at the one screen indy) shows are super hero fare. While I find ~20% superheroes surprising, I’d be curious as to how it compared to it genre movies of decades past.  Regardless, it certainly suggests that the 80% of the market in a Midwestern college town with a thirst for big action and explosions pretty much illustrates the hyperbole in your statement above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hauberk said:

I don’t know where you live, but looking at what’s currently on screen where I live  2/19 (maybe 4 if you count Minions and Everything All at Once - showing at the one screen indy) shows are super hero fare. While I find ~20% superheroes surprising, I’d be curious as to how it compared to it genre movies of decades past.  Regardless, it certainly suggests that the 80% of the market in a Midwestern college town with a thirst for big action and explosions pretty much illustrates the hyperbole in your statement above. 

Think you are taking my comments a little too seriously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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. 


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.

It had to do with the Aurora, CO theater shooting and some unconfirmed reports of social media activity. The press just ran with it. This is a good article.

ETA: I would have been open to the possibility that the controversy was ginned up by the studio to juice the film. but this doesn't quite jibe with a red carpet premiere with just cast and crew and photographers. The press were frozen out. 

These days it isn't a matter of whether or not it's "derivative"; but can it be derivative in an interesting way. 

7 hours ago, DMC said:

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.  

 

We agree it was a cool idea. And what came out was a brilliant film. I don't know your brother. 

Quote

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.

How dare he? An Actor who, "acts".

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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. 

Pretty much. Although there's a distinction to be made between a studio driven film (which the marvel and current crop of DC films are), and a director driven film. But yeah, I've said before I think the genre is on life support creatively.

Time was, if a studio wanted to make a blockbuster, they had to put themselves and a pile of their money in the hands of a Cameron, or Coppola, or Lucas, or Spielberg, cross their fingers, and hope for the best. The thing is those guys are a pain in the ass to deal with because they have funny ideas like, "creative control", "final cut", and, "getting paid". Plus, what if they fail?

The real secret of the Marvel formula is to reduce the director to the role of hired hand. Chloe Zao directed Eternals? Well, she probably directed most of it. Scenes that involve people talking in rooms were probably hers. Everything else? Who knows? And how much input did she have in editing the thing? I doubt she had final cut. Why do all marvel films feel so uniform? That's why. This is also why they could never make a film like Joker.

And I guarantee you there's some group deep in the bowels of the Disney marketing department who's sole job is figuring out what combination of film moments makes (fill-in-the-blank) movie review aggregator go up. There are billions of dollars at stake here. They'd be negligent not to do that. 

4 hours ago, 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.

I agree with this. "Joker" is almost a skin they put on an otherwise un-comic book movie. 

3 hours ago, Myrddin said:

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. 

Yeah it makes no sense. Nostalgia? Definitely. 

Remember that one of the criticisms of Affleck around JL filming was the he was too old for the role. Not just from CBM nerds, I'm pretty sure I could find the panel discussion from Collider Heroes or whatever where they're saying the same thing. Michael Keaton is 70 BTW. 

Now, if "Batgirl" was actually a multiverse "Batgirl Beyond", With Grace playing a gender swapped Terry McGinnis and Michael Keaton playing her grizzled old mentor? Maybe even with an R rating? I'd totally be down for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.
 

Can't speak for everyone else, but I've avoided pretty much every DC movie post Nolan because none of it is interesting, in that the take on it that is being presented, is not what I'm looking for in those movies with those characters. Politics has nothing to do with it.  

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.

Not sure what the incles, and the like, could have liked about a movie about a villain who loves anarchy and chaos and nilism.  Particularly as there is no one in sight to act as the heroic counter.

Again, I didn't see it, but the consensus seems to be it was derivative of other stories, not layering on the style of genre, as you note above on Winter Soldier or Dark Knight.  Two of the better comic book movies ever.  Substance over Style. 

 

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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. 

You don't like comic book movies, so your idea of "great" ones is suspect.

As to risks in Marvel movies...how many were nothing but risk?  The first Iron Man. The first Avengers. The Winter Soldier. Ragnarok. Black Panther. Those five alone are five of the riskiest movies Marvel made and all five are in the top ten of Marvel Movies and Winter Soldier and Black Panther belong on any comic book movie top ten list, if not top five.

4 hours ago, 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.

This is one of my biggest issues.  Again, I didn't see the film.  That doesn't mean I don't read reviews and articles about the making of, and listening to people in the know when they talk about these things.  There really isn't any reason to have the movie be called "Joker", other than it came from Warner Bros. maybe?  Reading up on the plot and watching some clips, it feels like the entire reason to give the movie the "Joker" title is to claim its a comic book movie under the DC tentpole and it'll get more buzz and attention than if it was called "Arthur Fleck"...it could have had all the Oscar nominations it got, it just wouldn't have made the kind of money it did if it was only a Joaquin Phoenix vanity project...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

We agree it was a cool idea. And what came out was a brilliant film. I don't know your brother. 

You don't know me either, but as someone who loves the Scorsese films it's based on I can't help but scoff at referring to the film as brilliant.

11 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

How dare he? An Actor who, "acts".

Decidedly one-dimensionally in that film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Not sure what the incles, and the like, could have liked about a movie about a villain who loves anarchy and chaos and nilism.  Particularly as there is no one in sight to act as the heroic counter.

Joker is definitely not that. This version of the Joker is very different from previous takes.

Orthogonal to that, it amazes me that so many film reviewers, who I would guess align more to the progressive end of the political spectrum, based on the stuff they share on their twitter feeds, either never mention or are totally oblivious to the themes and commentary in this movie. And we're not talking about "subtlety" here. If anything it's kind of heavy handed.

Recommend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Joker is definitely not that. This version of the Joker is very different from previous takes.

Orthogonal to that, it amazes me that so many film reviewers, who I would guess align more to the progressive end of the political spectrum, based on the stuff they share on their twitter feeds, either never mention or are totally oblivious to the themes and commentary in this movie. And we're not talking about "subtlety" here. If anything it's kind of heavy handed.

Recommend. 

The narrative and media chat about the movie seem so detached from the movie itself, you wonder if any of them ever watched it. 
But there is a whole industry of websites who thrive on stoking controversy , especially from writers with certain political leanings, so it’s not surprising.

 

27 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

You don't like comic book movies, so your idea of "great" ones is suspect.

As to risks in Marvel movies...how many were nothing but risk?  The first Iron Man. The first Avengers. The Winter Soldier. Ragnarok. Black Panther. Those five alone are five of the riskiest movies Marvel made and all five are in the top ten of Marvel Movies and Winter Soldier and Black Panther belong on any comic book movie top ten list, if not top five.

I mean, I REALLY like comic book movies, so you couldn’t be more wrong. What I don’t like is bland forgettable brain fluff that really pushes the definition of mediocre.

I think there is a difference between Marvel as a studio taking a risk, like building up to Avengers, and movies which take risks in how they tell they stories. 
As mentioned most marvel movies are risk free, and directors mainly need to work within a rigid system to do their work. Some directors seem to be able to make that work, the Russos seemed to just get how to do it, and some really seem to struggle and seem lost within the system.

I mean our ideas of great marvel movies seem quite aligned ( except black Panther which I’ve said before I just think is a badly made movie which is massively over praised because of ‘politics’)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Joker is definitely not that. This version of the Joker is very different from previous takes.

 

 

The Joker movie not being about the Joker just makes it sound even less appealing tbqh. 



 

36 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

 belong on any comic book movie top ten list, if not top five.


It's a minor ting really but I reckon we should distinguish between 'comic book movie' and 'superhero movie' coz I like those two but putting them in the company of the likes of Oldboy, History of Violence or Ghost in the Shell would be a real reach for me if that's what you meant. 

 

I know with Joker in discussion it kind of blurs the line, not really being a superhero movie, but oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Joker is definitely not that. This version of the Joker is very different from previous takes.

Orthogonal to that, it amazes me that so many film reviewers, who I would guess align more to the progressive end of the political spectrum, based on the stuff they share on their twitter feeds, either never mention or are totally oblivious to the themes and commentary in this movie. And we're not talking about "subtlety" here. If anything it's kind of heavy handed.

Recommend. 

What are the takes and theme then? 

Wiki's description of the film starts: 

Joker is a 2019 American psychological thriller film directed and produced by Todd Phillips, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver. The film, based on DC Comics characters, stars Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker and provides a possible origin story for the character. Set in 1981, it follows Arthur Fleck, a failed clown and aspiring stand-up comedian whose descent into insanity and nihilism inspires a violent countercultural revolution against the wealthy in a decaying Gotham City.

I realize it's Wikipedia, but that's just a description of the basic thrust of the movie, no?  I mean, if that isn't what the most basic description of the character of Joker is...  :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


It's a minor ting really but I reckon we should distinguish between 'comic book movie' and 'superhero movie' coz I like those two but putting them in the company of the likes of Oldboy, History of Violence or Ghost in the Shell would be a real reach for me if that's what you meant. 

I know with Joker in discussion it kind of blurs the line, not really being a superhero movie, but oh well.

No.  You're right.  There are differences.  I was speaking specifically to Superhero Movies in this case.  

(Though I'd make a case that Winter Soldier can go on the top ten superhero or comic book movie lists...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

What are the takes and theme then? 

Wiki's description of the film starts: 

Joker is a 2019 American psychological thriller film directed and produced by Todd Phillips, who co-wrote the screenplay with Scott Silver. The film, based on DC Comics characters, stars Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker and provides a possible origin story for the character. Set in 1981, it follows Arthur Fleck, a failed clown and aspiring stand-up comedian whose descent into insanity and nihilism inspires a violent countercultural revolution against the wealthy in a decaying Gotham City.

I realize it's Wikipedia, but that's just a description of the basic thrust of the movie, no?  I mean, if that isn't what the most basic description of the character of Joker is...  :dunno:

Without spoiling too much, This is a joker who is thouroughly alienated from society at large and even the people around him. What he wants is human connection. He wants friendship, love, solidarity, respect. Whatever that is, it isn't nihilism. That's Ledger's joker, not this one. 

The how and why he, "inspires a violent countercultural revolution" are the themes commentary I was talking about. And, "countercultural" is totally not the right word here. 

Just watch the gosh darn movie already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Without spoiling too much, This is a joker who is thouroughly alienated from society at large and even the people around him. What he wants is human connection. He wants friendship, love, solidarity, respect. Whatever that is, it isn't nihilism. That's Ledger's joker, not this one. 

The how and why he, "inspires a violent countercultural revolution" are the themes commentary I was talking about. And, "countercultural" is totally not the right word here. 

Just watch the gosh darn movie already.

So really the only reason to call this movie, "Joker" is to ensure people would watch the Joaquin Phoenix vanity project (though I always thought Walk the Line was his vanity project...)  Because, it could almost be an interesting character study of a film, that no one would watch except for those who seek out Oscar fare regardless of money made...

Truthfully, though, that doesn't sound like an interesting take on Joker at all.  It really sounds like they're trying to humanize and justify Joker, giving him some sort of humanity.  That's not what the character is about at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Decidedly one-dimensionally in that film.

Nuh, uh. Several dimensions. At least five. And the facets; sweet merciful Jesus, so many facets. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The narrative and media chat about the movie seem so detached from the movie itself, you wonder if any of them ever watched it. 
But there is a whole industry of websites who thrive on stoking controversy , especially from writers with certain political leanings, so it’s not surprising.

If it bleeds it leads, regardless of political leanings. It should be noted, People somewhat left of the mainstream absolutely love this film. Michael Moore called it brilliant. Chapo Trap House does a panel discussion about the film and the controversy around it that's absolutely spot on. Slavoj Zisek has also talked at length about it, although he may not have actually seen it :D.

Social media cultural critics who's bread and butter is clicks, whether they identify as progressive or conservative; they just react. "Angry white Incel", this and "SJW" that is about as deep as their commentary gets. At best it's entertaining. If it's ever informative or thought provoking is purely incidental.  

30 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Truthfully, though, that doesn't sound like an interesting take on Joker at all.  It really sounds like they're trying to humanize and justify Joker, giving him some sort of humanity.  That's not what the character is about at all.  

 You seem to be putting a fair amount of energy into finding ways to not see this movie. Maybe don't see it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

So really the only reason to call this movie, "Joker" is to ensure people would watch the Joaquin Phoenix vanity project (though I always thought Walk the Line was his vanity project...) 

Isn't he the dude who pretended to quit acting to become a rapper, but was really making a documentary? Does it still count as a vanity project if it's embarrassing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RumHam said:

Isn't he the dude who pretended to quit acting to become a rapper, but was really making a documentary? Does it still count as a vanity project if it's embarrassing?

Something like that...or was that something Shai LaBeouf did...?  Who can tell anymore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

So really the only reason to call this movie, "Joker" is to ensure people would watch the Joaquin Phoenix vanity project (though I always thought Walk the Line was his vanity project...)  Because, it could almost be an interesting character study of a film, that no one would watch except for those who seek out Oscar fare regardless of money made...

Truthfully, though, that doesn't sound like an interesting take on Joker at all.  It really sounds like they're trying to humanize and justify Joker, giving him some sort of humanity.  That's not what the character is about at all.  

I don’t really agree with this take, you should probably just watch it.

Personally I liked that it took The Joker and told a story they wanted to tell, but also stayed true to the character itself. It wasn’t a slavish adaptation of a comic book, it was a more interesting adaptation of a known property, and I think that should be appreciated.

Of course they were able to do that because the Joker doesn’t really have a canon back story , outside of some instances like The Killing Joke , which can never really be believed anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase a quote from an author I know, “Ezra Miller is living life like I play Grand Theft Auto.”

Arrested over burglary. Don’t know how their career will survive. Guessing WB will either have to recast and reshoot Flash scenes, or bin the movie.

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2022/aug/09/ezra-miller-charged-with-felony-burglary-in-vermont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to give Miller some credit. They led the police on a merry chase, for nearly two months. Heck Miller even mocked the police on social media while doing it. I wonder if Miller will try to plead insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...