Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
"Ok so, for the new Superman movie we figured we'd just get joaquin phoenix to wear a superman t-shit and just go 'Woosh' while pretending to fly for two hours"
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I'm really sad that Joker is going to make all this money when it's a hugely derivative film based on a seminal character to whom it arguably doesn't stay faithful, while an amazing movie like Parasite, which actually has the balls to explore the same themes, is largely going to be ignored by the American movie-going public.
Don't get me wrong - Phoenix's performance is worth the price of admission. But there are significantly better movies out there that I think would leave people feeling much more satisfied when they leave the theater.
I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. Joker as a character is beloved and of course a movie about him in any way would do well.
Parasite is an excellent film for completely different reasons, for a completely different audience, is getting amazing buzz and has a decent ad campaign
Justice league review by cinema sins, cinema snob, and nostalgia critic
RickRude on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
You just listed three excellent reasons to never watch that video.
+27
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Never watch anything by the Nostalgia Critic ever again.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Nostalgic Critic reminds me of the guys you see selling Shadow of the Empire toys at the flea market in the church parking lot
+2
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
First you're hating on Joker, now you're hating on NC? You guys are no fun at all. Critic's no comedic genius by any stretch of the imagination but his troop make me chuckle. He's good background noise at least.
First you're hating on Joker, now you're hating on NC? You guys are no fun at all. Critic's no comedic genius by any stretch of the imagination but his troop make me chuckle. He's good background noise at least.
Oh God I completely forgot about the "itchy" comment in Justice League. What an awful line.
0
Options
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
That's a little dark. But then again Shazam was all happy go lucky in the ads and they had demons rip apart a whole boardroom, including eating a guy's head, in the movie.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
Is Black Adam a superhero? I mean I know to his people he is but isn't he in general a bad guy?
Correct, he's a bad guy. In the comics he has the same magical powers that Shazam has but hes a lot LOT older. Like Ancient Egypt old. In many incarnations he can't change back to his human form without instantly ageing into dust.
Is Black Adam a superhero? I mean I know to his people he is but isn't he in general a bad guy?
Traditionally, he was a bad guy. The latest incarnations of him are more shades of gray, with the usual caveat that this changes from writer to writer.
He's still a ruthless murderer, but he's also a genuinely committed ruler of a developing nation who keeps to himself unless something threatens his home. Basically, he's morphed into the DC equivalent of Namor or Doom.
Old Shazam spent 5,000 years trying to find someone worthy.
The movie does set up Shazam as, if not exactly evil, then the kind of Lawful Good that can make an enemy out of a friend quite easily.
Yup. I mean the original Shazam is clearly a dick in the "The enemy of the perfect is anything less than" school. It was the whole origin of Mark Strong's character.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Joker just crossed 1 BILLION DOLLARS. No amount of controversy, doomsaying, vitriol, hate, or blatant lies will stop people from getting out to see it. At this point, Joker is certified kino. It'll be going in my collection between Casino and Taxi Driver.
You can bet your sweet ass that WB will be greenlighting a slew of unconnected, standalone spinoffs. I really hope this give WB the courage to produce "filmmaker driven" pictures after the shitshow that was the DCEU. If they restrict the autor films to one offs it would avoid the possibility of another Zack Snyder from doing more than 1 film's worth of damage to the brand. Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
Clearly, they need to make this Joker fight the Justice League!
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+5
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
Clearly, they need to make this Joker fight the Justice League!
Joker actually made more money than BvS OR Justice League. Given how much both films cost to make and market, I think I'm safe in saying Joker has been more profitable than BvS and JL combined. If anything, this will tell WB that the Justice League needs to stay the fuck away from these stand-alone films.
Joker just crossed 1 BILLION DOLLARS. No amount of controversy, doomsaying, vitriol, hate, or blatant lies will stop people from getting out to see it. At this point, Joker is certified kino. It'll be going in my collection between Casino and Taxi Driver.
You can bet your sweet ass that WB will be greenlighting a slew of unconnected, standalone spinoffs. I really hope this give WB the courage to produce "filmmaker driven" pictures after the shitshow that was the DCEU. If they restrict the autor films to one offs it would avoid the possibility of another Zack Snyder from doing more than 1 film's worth of damage to the brand. Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
I think the success of Joker bodes well. Hopefully what the studio takes from it isn't "we need double down on grimdark stuff" but instead that a comic book movie can be successful even if it doesn't have an action scene every five seconds, isn't made with the toy market in mind, and isn't part of a Cinematic Universe
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I have no idea what WB will take away from Joker. Are we in for a pile of one-off films that are half comic character and half ripoff of classic movies? Comic character movies where nobody actually has any powers and it's not actually related to any existing comic setting? Fifteen more one-off unrelated Joker movies? All characters in further DCEU movies are just the Joker?
Probably the situation I would like best is if they went to a bunch of random moviemakers and just said "fuck it, do whatever you want with this character, have a blast". Even the crappy ones would probably end up more interesting than the towering heights of shit that was Justice League.
They wanted a CU because that gets you a certain amount of guaranteed audience for each one. Even if you're not that excited about it, you want to see how the universe develops.
But they rushed it and shit the bed, so now they're trying different things to see what works.
For my money, Aquaman and Shazam had the right idea; they're in the same universe, but not overlapping besides the occasional reference.
Joker does fine on it's own, but trying to build it into a CU is going to have problems. If they decide to take it the other way and do nothing but standalones that don't exist with each other at all, I think that'd be worse.
I have no idea what WB will take away from Joker. Are we in for a pile of one-off films that are half comic character and half ripoff of classic movies? Comic character movies where nobody actually has any powers and it's not actually related to any existing comic setting? Fifteen more one-off unrelated Joker movies? All characters in further DCEU movies are just the Joker?
Probably the situation I would like best is if they went to a bunch of random moviemakers and just said "fuck it, do whatever you want with this character, have a blast". Even the crappy ones would probably end up more interesting than the towering heights of shit that was Justice League.
As long as there is a shot of a pearls necklace being torn in slowmotion, anything is fair game.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
+5
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
They wanted a CU because that gets you a certain amount of guaranteed audience for each one. Even if you're not that excited about it, you want to see how the universe develops.
But they rushed it and shit the bed, so now they're trying different things to see what works.
For my money, Aquaman and Shazam had the right idea; they're in the same universe, but not overlapping besides the occasional reference.
Joker does fine on it's own, but trying to build it into a CU is going to have problems. If they decide to take it the other way and do nothing but standalones that don't exist with each other at all, I think that'd be worse.
How would that be worse? That's the culture that brought us the majority of the good DC movies prior to this. Richard Donner's Superman didn't exist next to Tim Burton's Batman. Sure we also got jems like Bat Nipples and MumbleBane but I'd argue that the stand-alone movies have a better track record than the CU movies.
Honestly, the success of Joker is a mixed bag imho.
On the one hand, DC made a lot of money by making a good movie cast with a talented actor as it's lead. This is good!
On the other hand, by all accounts this wasn't even supposed to be a DC movie in the first place and a lot of elements of the movie were shifted around to make this about the Joker and that is not only dangerous to try and replicate but also feels... kind of unethical?
Further, I've argued for about a decade that DC needs to stop being so god damn dour and the success of Joker is sure to derail any sort positive change in that regard.
+9
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I'm totally ok with comic book movies where nobody has any actual powers. That's kinda why I liked Batman to begin with.
+1
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Honestly, the success of Joker is a mixed bag imho.
On the one hand, DC made a lot of money by making a good movie cast with a talented actor as it's lead. This is good!
On the other hand, by all accounts this wasn't even supposed to be a DC movie in the first place and a lot of elements of the movie were shifted around to make this about the Joker and that is not only dangerous to try and replicate but also feels... kind of unethical?
Further, I've argued for about a decade that DC needs to stop being so god damn dour and the success of Joker is sure to derail any sort positive change in that regard.
More than anything, Joker was wholly different than all of the other DC movies leading up to it. Just like Shazam was wholly different. Clearly, what people don't want is the same bland, drab, creatively bankrupt movies the studio had been shoveling into the feed trough. Drab, dower and depressing is just as valid a filmmaking strategy as the lighthearted, colorful and fun. We need both and now we have good examples of both to follow. I fully expect James Gunn's Suicide Squad to bring more options to the table. What we don't need is to get locked into one type of film making. We need variety. It would appear that WB has finally figured this out and is giving people what they want.
I'm totally ok with comic book movies where nobody has any actual powers. That's kinda why I liked Batman to begin with.
Looking at previous pitches for Superman movies, I recall one where he wasn't an alien and didn't have any powers himself, but got all his powers from his suit which was an alien life-form.
Apparently the one pitching it really had never heard of Venom.
Comic book characters who don't have powers is fine. I'm afraid that they'll take characters who do have powers, and take them away.
I'm totally ok with comic book movies where nobody has any actual powers. That's kinda why I liked Batman to begin with.
Looking at previous pitches for Superman movies, I recall one where he wasn't an alien and didn't have any powers himself, but got all his powers from his suit which was an alien life-form.
Apparently the one pitching it really had never heard of Venom.
Comic book characters who don't have powers is fine. I'm afraid that they'll take characters who do have powers, and take them away.
I don't why they'd do that when there's hundreds of heroes without powers. Hell, you got a dozen just in the bat family. Give me my gritty Azrael movie, DC
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
Clearly, they need to make this Joker fight the Justice League!
Reshoot the post-credit scene to have Joaquin Phoenix on the boat with Luthor instead.
Honestly, the success of Joker is a mixed bag imho.
On the one hand, DC made a lot of money by making a good movie cast with a talented actor as it's lead. This is good!
On the other hand, by all accounts this wasn't even supposed to be a DC movie in the first place and a lot of elements of the movie were shifted around to make this about the Joker and that is not only dangerous to try and replicate but also feels... kind of unethical?
Further, I've argued for about a decade that DC needs to stop being so god damn dour and the success of Joker is sure to derail any sort positive change in that regard.
More than anything, Joker was wholly different than all of the other DC movies leading up to it. Just like Shazam was wholly different. Clearly, what people don't want is the same bland, drab, creatively bankrupt movies the studio had been shoveling into the feed trough. Drab, dower and depressing is just as valid a filmmaking strategy as the lighthearted, colorful and fun. We need both and now we have good examples of both to follow. I fully expect James Gunn's Suicide Squad to bring more options to the table. What we don't need is to get locked into one type of film making. We need variety. It would appear that WB has finally figured this out and is giving people what they want.
I'm skeptical, since the DCEU was clearly designed to emulate the dark knight trilogy despite it not making any sense to try and match the color, tone or style of snyder to superman owing the to blatently obvious differences between superman and batman.
No, I'm thinking that the execs are going to lizard brain this and go "JOKER IS MAEK MANY $ WE NEDE MAKE ALL MOVIE LIKE JOKER MOVIE DO IT NOW MORE MONEY!"
Posts
He also was a pitch perfect Clark Kent.
Don't get me wrong - Phoenix's performance is worth the price of admission. But there are significantly better movies out there that I think would leave people feeling much more satisfied when they leave the theater.
Parasite is an excellent film for completely different reasons, for a completely different audience, is getting amazing buzz and has a decent ad campaign
Idk seems like grasping at things to be mad about
Justice league review by cinema sins, cinema snob, and nostalgia critic
He also, at the very least, sat back and watched as his many, many collaborators get screwed over. Possibly had an active role in said screwing.
That's a little dark. But then again Shazam was all happy go lucky in the ads and they had demons rip apart a whole boardroom, including eating a guy's head, in the movie.
Correct, he's a bad guy. In the comics he has the same magical powers that Shazam has but hes a lot LOT older. Like Ancient Egypt old. In many incarnations he can't change back to his human form without instantly ageing into dust.
Traditionally, he was a bad guy. The latest incarnations of him are more shades of gray, with the usual caveat that this changes from writer to writer.
He's still a ruthless murderer, but he's also a genuinely committed ruler of a developing nation who keeps to himself unless something threatens his home. Basically, he's morphed into the DC equivalent of Namor or Doom.
The movie does set up Shazam as, if not exactly evil, then the kind of Lawful Good that can make an enemy out of a friend quite easily.
Yup. I mean the original Shazam is clearly a dick in the "The enemy of the perfect is anything less than" school. It was the whole origin of Mark Strong's character.
Joker just crossed 1 BILLION DOLLARS. No amount of controversy, doomsaying, vitriol, hate, or blatant lies will stop people from getting out to see it. At this point, Joker is certified kino. It'll be going in my collection between Casino and Taxi Driver.
You can bet your sweet ass that WB will be greenlighting a slew of unconnected, standalone spinoffs. I really hope this give WB the courage to produce "filmmaker driven" pictures after the shitshow that was the DCEU. If they restrict the autor films to one offs it would avoid the possibility of another Zack Snyder from doing more than 1 film's worth of damage to the brand. Given WB's recent track record of Aquaman, Shazam and now Joker, I want to believe that they will take away the right ideas from the $950 million dollars in profit they've made so far.
Joker actually made more money than BvS OR Justice League. Given how much both films cost to make and market, I think I'm safe in saying Joker has been more profitable than BvS and JL combined. If anything, this will tell WB that the Justice League needs to stay the fuck away from these stand-alone films.
Just like the Transformers movies!
He's like Namor in that respect.
Probably the situation I would like best is if they went to a bunch of random moviemakers and just said "fuck it, do whatever you want with this character, have a blast". Even the crappy ones would probably end up more interesting than the towering heights of shit that was Justice League.
But they rushed it and shit the bed, so now they're trying different things to see what works.
For my money, Aquaman and Shazam had the right idea; they're in the same universe, but not overlapping besides the occasional reference.
Joker does fine on it's own, but trying to build it into a CU is going to have problems. If they decide to take it the other way and do nothing but standalones that don't exist with each other at all, I think that'd be worse.
As long as there is a shot of a pearls necklace being torn in slowmotion, anything is fair game.
How would that be worse? That's the culture that brought us the majority of the good DC movies prior to this. Richard Donner's Superman didn't exist next to Tim Burton's Batman. Sure we also got jems like Bat Nipples and MumbleBane but I'd argue that the stand-alone movies have a better track record than the CU movies.
On the one hand, DC made a lot of money by making a good movie cast with a talented actor as it's lead. This is good!
On the other hand, by all accounts this wasn't even supposed to be a DC movie in the first place and a lot of elements of the movie were shifted around to make this about the Joker and that is not only dangerous to try and replicate but also feels... kind of unethical?
Further, I've argued for about a decade that DC needs to stop being so god damn dour and the success of Joker is sure to derail any sort positive change in that regard.
More than anything, Joker was wholly different than all of the other DC movies leading up to it. Just like Shazam was wholly different. Clearly, what people don't want is the same bland, drab, creatively bankrupt movies the studio had been shoveling into the feed trough. Drab, dower and depressing is just as valid a filmmaking strategy as the lighthearted, colorful and fun. We need both and now we have good examples of both to follow. I fully expect James Gunn's Suicide Squad to bring more options to the table. What we don't need is to get locked into one type of film making. We need variety. It would appear that WB has finally figured this out and is giving people what they want.
Apparently the one pitching it really had never heard of Venom.
Comic book characters who don't have powers is fine. I'm afraid that they'll take characters who do have powers, and take them away.
I don't why they'd do that when there's hundreds of heroes without powers. Hell, you got a dozen just in the bat family. Give me my gritty Azrael movie, DC
Reshoot the post-credit scene to have Joaquin Phoenix on the boat with Luthor instead.
I'm skeptical, since the DCEU was clearly designed to emulate the dark knight trilogy despite it not making any sense to try and match the color, tone or style of snyder to superman owing the to blatently obvious differences between superman and batman.
No, I'm thinking that the execs are going to lizard brain this and go "JOKER IS MAEK MANY $ WE NEDE MAKE ALL MOVIE LIKE JOKER MOVIE DO IT NOW MORE MONEY!"
Penguin movie based on Goodfellas
Death of Superman movie based on The Last Temptation of Christ