Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Joker] Clown Prince of Cringe

13

Posts

  • PerduraboPerdurabo Leeds, UKRegistered User regular
    It just feels like people scratching around for outrage after the movie ended up not being the incel manifesto they were expecting.

    Really don't think it was a scheme to make the 5% of the audience who knew both the song and Gary Glitter's crimes, uncomfortable. Guy just thought the song worked in the scene, and it did.

    NamrokZombie HeroChiselphaneAtaxrxesmcdermottMonwynKoopahTroopahSatanIsMyMotorKana
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    What's the harm?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What's the harm?

    If they have nothing to be outraged about then they have to dwell on their own behavior instead.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
  • furbatfurbat Registered User regular
    edited October 10
    I think that whether or not the viewer was aware of the artist behind the song, there's no way the director would have missed it. Furthermore, I suspect it was chosen deliberately for its potential to evoke discomfort, even if not every audience member noticed it. The movie was definitely at least that subtle in other areas.

    It was all part of his master plan to cause internet randoms to embarrass themselves in pointless outrage.

    See, the Joker's real identity is Todd Philips and he just wants the world to burn.

    furbat on
    wanderingTicaldfjamKana
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    To apply a bit of D&D here, Joker as a character is one of the most Chaotic Evil characters there is, in any medium. He thrives on chaos, and creating chaos is his entire shtick. Chaos without morality.

    This movie did a good job of demonstrating his fall to Chaotic Evil. At the beginning of the movie I'd call Arthur Fleck True Neutral. But as bad things happen to him, as his life falls apart, as he loses his job, his relationships (real or imagined), his sanity, he slips from True Neutral to Chaotic Evil.

    When he sees that he inspired people to violence, riots, uprising, all of that, that was the first time Arthur was truly happy. He's a sick, deranged man who thrives on chaos. And whether or not Arthur Fleck is *the* Joker, he is a person who could be the Joker.

    The thing about the Joker as a character, not just in this movie, is that extreme violence is not his M.O.

    Sewing chaos is. There are plenty of examples where Joker takes a non-violent approach because that is more chaotic, or more unexpected. And unpredictability is a form of chaos. So if Joker can do something mischievous and benign and get under Batman's skin, he will do that. It isn't just murder murder murder with him. It's whatever sews the most chaos.

    Kristmas KthulhuNinjeffHappylilElfNobeard
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited October 11
    My favorite film critic is a bit less enthusiastic about the movie than I am
    Vern wrote:
    Let’s take a moment to consider that when BATMAN & ROBIN came out there is no way in hell any of us could’ve guessed that in 22 years one of our generation’s most respected actors would star in a super-fucked-up hard-R ‘70s period piece Scorsese knockoff character study vaguely based on (and officially branded as) an iconic Batman villain. Much less that it would be controversial only for reasons other than “it’s too scary for kids.” It’s a crazy world we’re living in. Almost like… the Joker. Oh my god.
    I kind of liked JOKER. I found it involving, Phoenix is obviously very good, it looks beautiful, there are those bits of dark comedy, there are some turns I didn’t see coming, some genuinely scary parts, and it’s a creepy slow burn to a couple really effective explosions of seriously fucked up violence. It’s about as well-executed a version as you could hope for of what in my opinion seems like the half-thought-out premise somebody brags that they pitched to a studio but the fucking cowards wouldn’t go for it. Something Max Landis would come up with. What if it’s The Joker, in Gotham City, only it’s real dark and grounded, ‘cause you learn about his problems, and he doesn’t do fun Joker stuff, or obviously fight Batman or anything. ‘Cause if you think about it if the Joker was real he wouldn’t fall into a vat of acid and have giant jack in the boxes and fight a guy dressed as a bat in a stylized gothic metropolis. He’d be more like Mark David Chapman. So that’s what you have to watch. Sorry losers. Fuck you.

    That they were able to make such a watchable movie out of an idea I find so fucking stupid is actually very impressive to me.

    http://outlawvern.com/2019/10/08/joker/

    I agree fully with his sentiment re: Batman & Robin however
    Ah shit, you guys. I like this stupid movie now.

    http://outlawvern.com/2017/06/20/br/

    wandering on
    atcwebmqawjl.png
    Ticaldfjam
  • AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    Redlettermedia enjoyed the second half of this movie so as a loyal sheep i'll probably give it a shot when it comes out on video.

    My hangup about it was never that it would inspire violence or whatever, it was mostly that it looked miserable and I don't enjoy putting myself through those kinds of experiences. What i've heard about it has made me curious though.

    steam_sig.png
    Dark Raven X
  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited October 11
    Nosf wrote: »
    I bet most people on the street don't know who Gary Glitter is or what he did.

    Americans maybe, in Britain he’s probably more known for being a famous pedophile than his songs. My grandparents would know who he is. One of the tabloids put the joker thing on its front page.

    Jeedan on
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    I bet most people on the street don't know who Gary Glitter is or what he did.

    In the UK they absolutely do

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    No one in the UK is going to see Joker, they're too busy preparing for the inevitable end of the world when Brexit without a deal happens. Then ironically, the english will look exactly like the australians, wearing a mish mash of hockey gear and driving around a wasteland for drips and drops of "petrol" whatever the fuck that is.

    Ticaldfjamchrono_travellerJazz
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited October 11
    I would only describe one scene in Joker as actually being "graphic" violence.
    The scene in which he stabs his ex-buddy to death in the face with a pair of scissors
    But I'm pretty inured to movie violence and the bar on what's "too gruesome" is kinda subjective. Mostly it's just people getting shot.

    RT800 on
    SnicketysnickKoopahTroopahLegacyTox
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Thirith wrote: »
    How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?

    On a scale of Cannibal Holocaust to 50's Westerns, it's maybe a tic or two up the scale from 50's Westerns. It's mostly hearing a gun go off, then people grabbing their chest and falling over. There is a singular scene more involved. Might rise to the level of your typical Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street murder.

    When I went to go see the film, the theater had special signage up I'd never seen before about how disturbingly violent the film is. They fucking lied. It's just bullshit moral panic. Or really clever marketing. Hard to tell.

    mcdermott
  • SnicketysnickSnicketysnick The Greatest Hype Man in WesterosRegistered User regular
    edited October 11
    Thirith wrote: »
    How violent is Joker? I keep hearing about its violence. Is it just that it's hard, realistic violence, and that's something we're not used to in films about comic book villains? Or does the film actually have much graphic violence?

    I think it's that and the fact that it's pretty sudden when it happens. There's nothing you wouldn't see outside of say John Wick, but there's also not the "protective" layer of "this is an action movie" if that makes sense.

    Snicketysnick on
    7qmGNt5.png
    D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    No one in the UK is going to see Joker, they're too busy preparing for the inevitable end of the world when Brexit without a deal happens. Then ironically, the english will look exactly like the australians, wearing a mish mash of hockey gear and driving around a wasteland for drips and drops of "petrol" whatever the fuck that is.

    Will they get Utes though? totally worth it

    This machine kills threads.
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited October 11
    It's mostly about the context in which the violence occurs, I think.

    If John Wick shoots someone in the head, it's because they were a bad person trying to kill him and he just got them first. And badass action music is blaring. And Holy Shit did you just see that shot!?

    If Joker shoots someone in the head, it's because he's a deranged criminal murdering an innocent civilian. And serious music is playing. And everyone is horrified.

    They both perform the same actual actions, but the context and tone is what makes one seem so much "more" violent.

    RT800 on
    ChiselphaneTheBlackWinddispatch.o
  • AtaxrxesAtaxrxes Cursed EarthRegistered User regular
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

  • ChiselphaneChiselphane Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    It's mostly about the context in which the violence occurs, I think.

    If John Wick shoots someone in the head, it's because they were a bad person trying to kill him and he just got them first. And badass action music is blaring. And Holy Shit did you just see that shot!?

    If Joker shoots someone in the head, it's because he's a deranged criminal murdering an innocent civilian. And serious music is playing. And everyone is horrified.

    They both perform the same actual actions, but the context and tone is what makes one seem so much "more" violent.

    Absolutely. The first thing that came to mind: There's a murder in Beautiful Creatures that isn't 'graphic', there's a bit of blood, but the staging, the sound design, the torturously slow build up. Even the act itself, it's not 'clean', its amateurish and clumsy. It's genuinely horrible to watch, I just looked it up on Youtube to make sure I was remembering it correctly and now my heart is pounding and I feel kind of queasy from the stress of it.

  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    Pretty sure the emphasis is on the "disturbingly" in the disturbingly violent warning.

    When my wife and I left the theater we didn't have much to say immediately other than that was a very disturbing 2 hours. Because damn

  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    Ataxrxes wrote: »
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

    You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
    TheBlackWind
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    On violence:
    The shooting of Murray was probably the most disturbing, though less gory than the stabbing that precedes it.

    I think the issue is that the way it’s shot gave it a more “real” feeling. It’s not just that a movie like John Wick has a good guy killing bad guys, or that it sin an action context, but that the cinematography and action is so stylized. It’s not real, at all. The way this is presented, though, as I remember it had almost a Bud Dwyer feel to it. Or something similar. It feels like it’s captured by a cameraman who isn’t expecting anybody to be shot, in how the event is framed and shown, so you as the audience suddenly feel as shocked as if it *were* real.

    Maybe that’s just me, but that’s why it felt so much more graphic than a hundred guys getting shot in the head in a different movie.

    LegacyKoopahTroopahTheBlackWindLocal H Jay
  • NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    Ataxrxes wrote: »
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

    You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.

    Lol.
    Welcome to Gotham City!

    Ticaldfjam
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    What's the harm?

    If they have nothing to be outraged about then they have to dwell on their own behavior instead.

    It's entirely possible to dwell on your own ethical behavior while looking at other things from an ethical standpoint and using those to gauge and monitor their own reactions vs societal expectations within the framework of a shifting modern world and then coming to a conclusion based on that

    I guess your way works too.

    Just like everyone who wanted to see Joker wanted to see Joker because Clown Man Shoot Bullies.

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
  • PerduraboPerdurabo Leeds, UKRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    On violence:
    The shooting of Murray was probably the most disturbing, though less gory than the stabbing that precedes it.

    I think the issue is that the way it’s shot gave it a more “real” feeling. It’s not just that a movie like John Wick has a good guy killing bad guys, or that it sin an action context, but that the cinematography and action is so stylized. It’s not real, at all. The way this is presented, though, as I remember it had almost a Bud Dwyer feel to it. Or something similar. It feels like it’s captured by a cameraman who isn’t expecting anybody to be shot, in how the event is framed and shown, so you as the audience suddenly feel as shocked as if it *were* real.

    Maybe that’s just me, but that’s why it felt so much more graphic than a hundred guys getting shot in the head in a different movie.
    For me part of it was you knew something awful was coming. It was similar to how I felt as he makes his way up to do his standup for the first time, I felt completely anxious the entire time.

    Also I think the fact the violence itself was in an arena that feels safe - it's a late night talk show. The violence isn't on the streets, isn't in a shitty rundown area of town. It's on a late night talk show, and it's filmed and presented like a talk show. That's what makes it so shocking, so raw.

    wandering
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ataxrxes wrote: »
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

    You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.

    Lol.
    Welcome to Gotham City!

    Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ataxrxes wrote: »
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

    You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.

    Lol.
    Welcome to Gotham City!

    Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.

    No - the movie was trying to tap into a very specific zeitgeist (specifically, New York City of the mid-70s to mid-80s,) which was what produced films like Taxi Driver. The problem is, from what I've heard, that this was done superficially - grasping at the theme and feel of the time, while not understanding what created it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Ticaldfjam
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    We weren't given a clear or realistic view of Gotham City. We weren't given much view of the city at all, actually.

    All we were given was the perspective of the city coming from a man who... well you know. That's the movie.

    So we don't really know what the city was like. We don't even know if the city is real, depending on how much of it you think was in his head.

    Maybe the riots, unrest, all of that was just made up. Maybe Thomas Wayne really was the saintly philanthropist that he is often made out to be. We don't know. Because Arthur Fleck was our window to everything. And at best it was a very muddy window, and at worst it was a window in a dream world in his mind.

  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Richland, WARegistered User regular
    Woo, just watched Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Now I'm ready to watch Joker.

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    wandering
  • furbatfurbat Registered User regular
    edited October 12
    Jephery wrote: »
    Ninjeff wrote: »
    Ataxrxes wrote: »
    IIRC there about...three separate instances of real violence? Maybe four. It's all about how it is portrayed as others have stated here. I want to say it is more realistic in the sense that there are consequences and it is relatively unexpected when it does happen. To keep with the John Wick analogy, in a film like that it's like you are watching a video game, you know it's not real. In Joker, the violence is very much shown as "hey, this is something that could really happen, maybe to you" and it is not played for laughs or thrills. There is one scene of extreme violence mentioned previously that has a brief moment right afterwards that seems to make people laugh in the theater, but I believe that was done intentionally to break the tension, as you really need a moment to recover after it happens.

    You know, I was thinking and this may be ultimately why the movie didn't resonate with me - I didn't quite buy into the world it was building or the general tone of the film. It all just felt so deliberately, derivatively miserable. So for me, the violence or overall terribleness of the film was just kind of...obvious. It's Joaquin Phoenix's performance more than anything else that gave the whole thing any weight.

    Lol.
    Welcome to Gotham City!

    Yeah Gotham is like the worst part of every American metro area distilled into an elemental of poverty, crime, and apathy.

    So Chicago? I'd say Detroit but Gotham doesn't seem that bad...

    furbat on
  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    edited October 12
    I really like what they did with Thomas Wayne in this.
    In most portrayals hes this insanely rich perfect doctor industrialist who does no wrong and dies tragically. In Joker he's still a good person but he comes off as an out of touch rich douche who tries to do the right thing. It felt much more real and grounded.

    Seal on
    JKoopahTroopah
  • Werewolf2000adWerewolf2000ad Suckers, I know exactly what went wrong. Registered User regular
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    I can't believe how wrong the early reviews got this movie. it was good, I don't think it was amazing (phoenix was, probably, but I'd have to see it again) but I enjoyed it and it felt like it had something to say which is generally the reason I hadn't seen a comic-related movie since GOTG1...

    I think some people were 'scared' by this movie because of how it imitates life, rather than the possibility of life imitating this piece of art.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • I needed a gnome to post.I needed a gnome to post. like fire Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I wouldnt go as far as an apology, but at least a half assed OP would be nice.

    no one reads OPs tho

    kcGLHQJ.png
    zepherin
  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    I can write a public apology but I don't think I can do that without using the words "eat" "my" "total" "ass" "and" "huff" "my" "low" "carb" "farts", not specifically in that arrangement but I do feel like some earnest sincerity may be lost.

    Congrats on a mediocre movie, though, that's a big get.

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
    zepherinTheBlackWind
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Public apologies are worthless anyway

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    zepherin
  • Werewolf2000adWerewolf2000ad Suckers, I know exactly what went wrong. Registered User regular
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    That is. The best. SNL skit. Ever.

    Three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind.
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    I keep ending up in this thread because I keep assuming the impeachment thread got a title change.

    Hoping I can see this soon tho.

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
    wandering
  • evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    This movie has made it to my "top 5 worst movies of all time list".
    An utter borefest.
    I feel bad for Phoenix, he really put a lot of effort into his performance.

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    I can write a public apology but I don't think I can do that without using the words "eat" "my" "total" "ass" "and" "huff" "my" "low" "carb" "farts", not specifically in that arrangement but I do feel like some earnest sincerity may be lost.

    Congrats on a mediocre movie, though, that's a big get.

    The amusing thing is that this is almost as edgelord as Leto Joker and yet at the same time both less relevant and insightful.

    Local H JayWhiteZinfandel
This discussion has been closed.