Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited July 2015
And that doesn't make it a bad movie necessarily (if it was actually happening in the movie), but it DOES perpetuate that trope in a profoundly unhelpful way within the subculture.
EDIT (this should have been an edit not a new post)
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
Liking the Joker has nothing to do with it.
It's still shitty and gross and it's a lazy tactic to try and make a bad guy despicable because you can't write worth shit.
Meh. We know duck all at this point. I'm willing to give it a watch and see what they do.
Historically? Nothing good.
Historically? You mean the last time they made a Suicide Squad film?
I mean the last time a piece of media decided a bad guy needed to abuse a woman because he wasn't evil enough.
And that statement encompasses a lot of media.
The vibe I get off of every scent that's wafted off of this Suicide Squad movie is that the Joker is meant to be an extra heinous individual, not a cult-inspiring rogue anarcho-crazytoon a la The Dark Knight. Being as American audiences in particular are more or less not phased by impersonal violence against semi-anonymous persons, depicting intimate violence against characters we're meant to personalize with is as good a method as any to drive home a villain's particular brand of toxicity.
I don't think I, or anyone else expressing concerns about this, has any issue with the in-canon justification of why he's like this. We take issue with the idea that someone felt it necessary to go to that well at all, considering there are plenty of other routes to take it that aren't as gross and potentially personally troubling to people. It's like that Loki argument from a while back. The issue isn't whether or not the character would do something like that. It's that the writer chose to have this gross thing that could have been replaced with something less objectionable and had the story still work perfectly fine.
Yeah, and the Loki argument was goosinine in the extreme.
Bad people do/say bad things.
Really bad people do/say really bad things.
Super-high-octaine-mass-murdering-villains would be proportionate, no?
And as to 'personally troubling?'
Do you know what was a personally troubling scene to me?
Watching a black man eaten alive by dogs after minutes of tension.
Nick Nolte's fucked up racist comments to Eddie Murphy in 48hrs
Something like two-thirds of every black male character dying a horrible death in any action/scifi/horror movie, to the point that you can practically set your watch to it.
That shit's personally uncomfortable for me. But it doesn't mean any of that work is bad hands-down.
This scene did not make Django Unchained a bad movie. I mean, it was a good movie one way or the other, yeah. And Suicide Squad is, one way or the other, not in the same class. It's probably going to be shit!
BUT!
Like, this is incredibly weird, as I'm a guy who's 'trigger' (and godfuck if I don't hate that use of the word) is graphic/drawn-out/traumatic violence against women. Shit makes me nauseated, cold sweats, everything (raised by a single mom). But here I am, arguing that maybe my personal trigger doesn't make a movie bad full stop.
And that's without getting into a discussion of how the speculated Harley/Joker dynamic may actually work in a narrative sense, if that's what they're in fact doing.
I mean, no one's saying "hey I don't like this potential element so it's a bad movie". People are saying "hey I don't like this potential element and I really hope/wish they wouldn't use it" which, I dunno, seems like a reasonable opinion?
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
+1
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
You are also on the record having said these things:
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
Liking the Joker has nothing to do with it.
It's still shitty and gross and it's a lazy tactic to try and make a bad guy despicable because you can't write worth shit.
Meh. We know duck all at this point. I'm willing to give it a watch and see what they do.
Historically? Nothing good.
Historically? You mean the last time they made a Suicide Squad film?
I mean the last time a piece of media decided a bad guy needed to abuse a woman because he wasn't evil enough.
And that statement encompasses a lot of media.
The vibe I get off of every scent that's wafted off of this Suicide Squad movie is that the Joker is meant to be an extra heinous individual, not a cult-inspiring rogue/pseudo anarchist crazytoon a la The Dark Knight. Being as American audiences in particular are more or less not phased by impersonal violence against semi-anonymous persons, depicting intimate violence against characters we're meant to personalize with is as good a method as any to drive home a villain's particular brand of toxicity.
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
And these are the posts with which I take issue, because they basically take the issue that was raised and dismisses it outright as "that's just the Joker" without even spotting the problems around what it means for Harley.
@Vivixenne That misses my point by a country mile.
Also, the point Hacksaw may be trying to make is that... Well, at some point, low self-esteem doesn't mean that you get to hook up with somebody who sells meth or, in the Joker's case, fucking murders all the people, and then just be a lovable, tragic heroine.
Like, at some point you are also a piece of shit. And if you're a piece of shit after having struck up with a piece of shit, knowing they were a piece of shit, essentially of your own accord, then you don't really tend to engender the same level of sympathy that you might if you were unaware or unwilling.
Starkwether situation; was she scared, or was she intrigued?
If she was scared: victim
If she was intrigued: she should've died in prison.
The Harley in the cartoon and the comics was intrigued, then scared/still intrigued. That's a villain. Like, a straight-up fucking villain.
I don't think I need to give Suicide Squad the benefit of the doubt because I don't feel like DC has any idea how the fuck to handle any of the characters they own, and what direction they do seem to be moving a lot of them in is one that I generally dislike and in some cases actually makes me uncomfortable
If you want to that's fine, but don't tell me we don't have any context for that scene, because the context is "every other thing they've been doing to their characters for the past few years"
Yeah, when their Superman movies are dour as fuck and the people involved with the Shazam movie had to outright say "it's not like the other DC movies, it's gonna be lighthearted", I'm not giving Suicide Squad any benefit
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not expecting to
For the record, I still don't understand how you can have an animated series universe that does so much right, then turn around and create a cinematic universe that's nowhere near that same quality.
Like, did nobody at DC think it'd be worthwhile to at least consult the writers/storyboard artists from JLU?
I don't think I need to give Suicide Squad the benefit of the doubt because I don't feel like DC has any idea how the fuck to handle any of the characters they own, and what direction they do seem to be moving a lot of them in is one that I generally dislike and in some cases actually makes me uncomfortable
If you want to that's fine, but don't tell me we don't have any context for that scene, because the context is "every other thing they've been doing to their characters for the past few years"
Yeah, when their Superman movies are dour as fuck and the people involved with the Shazam movie had to outright say "it's not like the other DC movies, it's gonna be lighthearted", I'm not giving Suicide Squad any benefit
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not expecting to
For the record, I still don't understand how you can have an animated series universe that does so much right, then turn around and create a cinematic universe that's nowhere near that same quality.
Like, did nobody at DC think it'd be worthwhile to at least consult the writers/storyboard artists from JLU?
Probably not, because they are entirely different divisions of a massive company in the form of WB and most of those people probably don't work there anymore
I don't think I need to give Suicide Squad the benefit of the doubt because I don't feel like DC has any idea how the fuck to handle any of the characters they own, and what direction they do seem to be moving a lot of them in is one that I generally dislike and in some cases actually makes me uncomfortable
If you want to that's fine, but don't tell me we don't have any context for that scene, because the context is "every other thing they've been doing to their characters for the past few years"
Yeah, when their Superman movies are dour as fuck and the people involved with the Shazam movie had to outright say "it's not like the other DC movies, it's gonna be lighthearted", I'm not giving Suicide Squad any benefit
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not expecting to
For the record, I still don't understand how you can have an animated series universe that does so much right, then turn around and create a cinematic universe that's nowhere near that same quality.
Like, did nobody at DC think it'd be worthwhile to at least consult the writers/storyboard artists from JLU?
I'd have loved a Dwayne McDuffie led movie-verse.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
I don't think I need to give Suicide Squad the benefit of the doubt because I don't feel like DC has any idea how the fuck to handle any of the characters they own, and what direction they do seem to be moving a lot of them in is one that I generally dislike and in some cases actually makes me uncomfortable
If you want to that's fine, but don't tell me we don't have any context for that scene, because the context is "every other thing they've been doing to their characters for the past few years"
Yeah, when their Superman movies are dour as fuck and the people involved with the Shazam movie had to outright say "it's not like the other DC movies, it's gonna be lighthearted", I'm not giving Suicide Squad any benefit
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not expecting to
For the record, I still don't understand how you can have an animated series universe that does so much right, then turn around and create a cinematic universe that's nowhere near that same quality.
Like, did nobody at DC think it'd be worthwhile to at least consult the writers/storyboard artists from JLU?
Probably not, because they are entirely different divisions of a massive company in the form of WB and most of those people probably don't work there anymore
also because the way you write for tv and movies is hella different
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Interesting that you'd give this scene the benefit of the doubt but apparently not to victims of abusive relationships.
Like that is not wholly relevant to the argument and is a bit snarky, I know, but it is blowing my mind that you - as in, HACKSAW - actually believe what you said you believe about abuse victims.
@Vivixenne That misses my point by a country mile.
Also, the point Hacksaw may be trying to make is that... Well, at some point, low self-esteem doesn't mean that you get to hook up with somebody who sells meth or, in the Joker's case, fucking murders all the people, and then just be a lovable, tragic heroine.
Like, at some point you are also a piece of shit. And if you're a piece of shit after having struck up with a piece of shit, knowing they were a piece of shit, essentially of your own accord, then you don't really tend to engender the same level of sympathy that you might if you were unaware or unwilling.
Starkwether situation; was she scared, or was she intrigued?
If she was scared: victim
If she was intrigued: she should've died in prison.
The Harley in the cartoon and the comics was intrigued, then scared/still intrigued. That's a villain. Like, a straight-up fucking villain.
Holy shit. We got a live one, and words fail me due to the abject shock and horror of it all.
Interesting that you'd give this scene the benefit of the doubt but apparently not to victims of abusive relationships.
Like that is not wholly relevant to the argument and is a bit snarky, I know, but it is blowing my mind that you - as in, HACKSAW - actually believe what you said you believe about abuse victims.
If you really want to engage me on this, you can PM me. My inbox is always open.
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
Liking the Joker has nothing to do with it.
It's still shitty and gross and it's a lazy tactic to try and make a bad guy despicable because you can't write worth shit.
Meh. We know duck all at this point. I'm willing to give it a watch and see what they do.
Historically? Nothing good.
Historically? You mean the last time they made a Suicide Squad film?
I mean the last time a piece of media decided a bad guy needed to abuse a woman because he wasn't evil enough.
And that statement encompasses a lot of media.
The vibe I get off of every scent that's wafted off of this Suicide Squad movie is that the Joker is meant to be an extra heinous individual, not a cult-inspiring rogue/pseudo anarchist crazytoon a la The Dark Knight. Being as American audiences in particular are more or less not phased by impersonal violence against semi-anonymous persons, depicting intimate violence against characters we're meant to personalize with is as good a method as any to drive home a villain's particular brand of toxicity.
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
And these are the posts with which I take issue.
The trope that... villains... do villainous things?
Like... Some thread, I think it was an earlier incarnation of this one, had an issue with A Fucking Demon From Hell in the new Ghost Rider comic calling a developmentally disabled character r***rd... A demon. From the biblical hell.
And... I'm trying to figure out if we're supposed to disassociate Nazis from murdering people of Hebrew descent in movies going forward. Or is that not "trope" enough?
Also, I do want to know, did you object as vigorously to the aforementioned scene from Django...? Show of hands, for real. I was here, but not paying as much attention at the time the movie came out.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Like, can we start with "low self-esteem"?
I mean, what? My brain is actually short-circuiting here. It actually cannot handle that level of over-simplification or dismissiveness.
@Vivixenne That misses my point by a country mile.
Also, the point Hacksaw may be trying to make is that... Well, at some point, low self-esteem doesn't mean that you get to hook up with somebody who sells meth or, in the Joker's case, fucking murders all the people, and then just be a lovable, tragic heroine.
Like, at some point you are also a piece of shit. And if you're a piece of shit after having struck up with a piece of shit, knowing they were a piece of shit, essentially of your own accord, then you don't really tend to engender the same level of sympathy that you might if you were unaware or unwilling.
Starkwether situation; was she scared, or was she intrigued?
If she was scared: victim
If she was intrigued: she should've died in prison.
The Harley in the cartoon and the comics was intrigued, then scared/still intrigued. That's a villain. Like, a straight-up fucking villain.
you're kinda contradicting yourself here
you're calling the harley of the comics/cartoon a "straight-up fucking villain", and yet she still has tons of fans and plenty of people that view that version of the character as "a lovable, tragic heroine", so that kind of flies in the face of whatever point you're trying to make
and again, you're minimizing the struggle that people go through every day for the sake of "sympathy" in a movie where an alligator man and a guy who throws boomerangs team up for government wetwork. the things that people in abusive relationships go through is absolutely a real, sympathetic issue, whether you can understand their reasons for being in that relationship or not, and breaking it down the way you did is kind of horrifying
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
Liking the Joker has nothing to do with it.
It's still shitty and gross and it's a lazy tactic to try and make a bad guy despicable because you can't write worth shit.
Meh. We know duck all at this point. I'm willing to give it a watch and see what they do.
Historically? Nothing good.
Historically? You mean the last time they made a Suicide Squad film?
I mean the last time a piece of media decided a bad guy needed to abuse a woman because he wasn't evil enough.
And that statement encompasses a lot of media.
The vibe I get off of every scent that's wafted off of this Suicide Squad movie is that the Joker is meant to be an extra heinous individual, not a cult-inspiring rogue/pseudo anarchist crazytoon a la The Dark Knight. Being as American audiences in particular are more or less not phased by impersonal violence against semi-anonymous persons, depicting intimate violence against characters we're meant to personalize with is as good a method as any to drive home a villain's particular brand of toxicity.
so looking at that suicide squad trailer a little closer, there are some, uh, troubling implications regarding the joker/harley relationship
gonna spoiler this cause it might be a bit triggering
there's a shot of a pre-harley harleen strapped to a table in a very unwilling state with what is clearly the joker standing over her in the same location/wearing the same glove he's wearing at the end of the trailer, meaning that's her he's talking to at the end, seeming to imply that he "breaks" her and she might not be devoted to him by choice
which is a pretty shitty direction to take an already precarious character
Well, I mean, I don't think you're supposed to like the Joker. He's a murderous psychopath with no good reasoning behind his actions.
And these are the posts with which I take issue.
The trope that... villains... do villainous things?
Like... Some thread, I think it was an earlier incarnation of this one, had an issue with A Fucking Demon From Hell in the new Ghost Rider comic calling a developmentally disabled character r***rd... A demon. From the biblical hell.
And... I'm trying to figure out if we're supposed to disassociate Nazis from murdering people of Hebrew descent in movies going forward. Or is that not "trope" enough?
Also, I do want to know, did you object as vigorously to the aforementioned scene from Django...? Show of hands, for real. I was here, but not paying as much attention at the time the movie came out.
Please stop.
[IMG][/img]
+5
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Good faith and benefit of the doubt don't exist in a vacuum.
If you feel differently, that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is victim blaming in the interest of giving a movie company that benefit.
I get the feeling you and I are not ever going to see exactly eye to eye on this particular subject? Perhaps now might be the best time to walk away in amicable disagreement.
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited July 2015
I do not object to Django because, while fictional, it is based on actual experiences of slavery and is meant to force people to acknowledge that this is the history.
Meanwhile the (possible) portrayal of a woman being tortured into loving a man is something that is lazy. It does not actually portray, with any basis reality, how abuse can actually deconstruct one's sense of self-worth or value.
Worse, it ignores and subverts the stuff that ACTUALLY forces women to remain with abusive men. It reinforces the image of women to be not their own agents, but to be tools in the development of male characters. This subculture has been guilty of that enough times that something different is LONG overdue.
You can portray a man as super evil without torturing a woman in a gratuitous way that is so common it's basically a trope. The writers may just have been too lazy to figure out how.
I mean, what? My brain is actually short-circuiting here. It actually cannot handle that level of over-simplification or dismissiveness.
Or, ok! We can have a full-on discussion of the actual psychological underpinnings of abused/abuser relationships in the comics movie thread! Or we can not. Because I certainly didn't want to write a dissertation on the subject while explaining my viewpoint about a split-second of a clip in a thread about funnybook movies.
But we most certainly can have a reasoned discussion in pms if you like.
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
you seem to be stuck on the idea that some of us are only taking issue with the possible development simply because it's not how it plays out in the comics
in which case i ask you to please reread a lot of the comments we've been making
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
the thing is, my issue as a comic book fan isn't "this is different from the comics, so it's bad" it's "this movie is being made by a company that has tended towards a particular type of storytelling in recent years, one that makes me less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now"
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
the thing is, my issue as a comic book fan isn't "this is different from the comics, so it's bad" it's "this movie is being made by a company that has tended towards a particular type of storytelling in recent years, one that makes me less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now"
Understandable. I don't believe the cynicism, in this case, is warranted, but your I suppose it's not my place to try to invalidate your personal feelings on the matter. Do as you will.
The dog piling in this place is getting unbelievable. @FroThulhu , @Hacksaw there's no point in continuing any of this. It's a hamster wheel.
You keep using this word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I fucking know exactly what it means. This entire place has turned into a forum of bullies, and God help anyone who doesn't add to the echo chamber.
What would you prefer, a conflict-free environment where everyone's thoughts are treated as special and equal (which, ironically, levels the playing field by giving no one any respect)? Disagreement is not bullying, and I think the conversation here has been perfectly civil and reasonable. People are addressing their disagreements on the merit of the argument and I think some degree of understanding of one another is occurring, albeit not agreement. That's how adult conversations are supposed to work.
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
Except I've never read an issue of Suicide Squad, and I agree with what a lot of them are saying about how it's incredibly problematic.
The dog piling in this place is getting unbelievable. @FroThulhu , @Hacksaw there's no point in continuing any of this. It's a hamster wheel.
You keep using this word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I fucking know exactly what it means. This entire place has turned into a forum of bullies, and God help anyone who doesn't add to the echo chamber.
What exactly do you feel is the protocol for when several people disagree with you on a subject? Should everybody but one not respond? Because it seems like when people use the word "dog-piling" it just means that several people are posting their own opinion which aligns with the side you are fighting against.
nightmarenny on
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Like Hacksaw you appear to be saying that it's ok for the Joker to be the Joker, even if it comes at the expense of Harley being Harley.
Do you understand why this is a bad thing in the current milieu?
I understand why this is a landmine issue for a lot of people here, yes.
There a long history of female characters being poorly written or portrayed because it's not what a particular male character needs as a foil or motivator or ornament in that moment. So some people are going to be hypersensitive to these characters being used this way even in a new medium.
And again, I don't like implying much from the trailers, but if you assumed that the implications of the scene in question are true, it's really problematic. And some people are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to franchises that have repeated shown they do not actually acknowledge the issue.
I mean, they included that scene without context in a promo of the movie. There's a lot to be implied from THAT decision too, regardless of how familiar you are with comic books.
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
Except I've never read an issue of Suicide Squad, and I agree with what a lot of them are saying about how it's incredibly problematic.
Posts
most of the comments have been pretty centered on the character-destroying nature of it
There is definitely a lot that can be inferred from just that small sequence, it's true. If they take the low road, well, then they run the risk of degrading the overall product for the sake of a cheap and dirty narrative nudge. I hope that's not the case. And, in point of fact, I've been on the record this whole time in saying that I'm not willing to believe it is the case until presented with more clear evidence that it is such.
EDIT (this should have been an edit not a new post)
I mean, no one's saying "hey I don't like this potential element so it's a bad movie". People are saying "hey I don't like this potential element and I really hope/wish they wouldn't use it" which, I dunno, seems like a reasonable opinion?
Which is well within your right
the way you're phrasing stuff makes it seems like you do not fully believe people have the right to believe that it is the case, pre-emptively, based on a cultural track record of handling this shit real poorly
You are also on the record having said these things:
And these are the posts with which I take issue, because they basically take the issue that was raised and dismisses it outright as "that's just the Joker" without even spotting the problems around what it means for Harley.
Also, the point Hacksaw may be trying to make is that... Well, at some point, low self-esteem doesn't mean that you get to hook up with somebody who sells meth or, in the Joker's case, fucking murders all the people, and then just be a lovable, tragic heroine.
Like, at some point you are also a piece of shit. And if you're a piece of shit after having struck up with a piece of shit, knowing they were a piece of shit, essentially of your own accord, then you don't really tend to engender the same level of sympathy that you might if you were unaware or unwilling.
Starkwether situation; was she scared, or was she intrigued?
If she was scared: victim
If she was intrigued: she should've died in prison.
The Harley in the cartoon and the comics was intrigued, then scared/still intrigued. That's a villain. Like, a straight-up fucking villain.
For the record, I still don't understand how you can have an animated series universe that does so much right, then turn around and create a cinematic universe that's nowhere near that same quality.
Like, did nobody at DC think it'd be worthwhile to at least consult the writers/storyboard artists from JLU?
I'd have loved a Dwayne McDuffie led movie-verse.
I mean, they certainly have that right. I just get a little annoyed when people don't give stuff the benefit of the doubt where it might be warranted. Suicide Squad is Ayer's first entry into the DC Cinematic Universe. As of this post, none of us know what story he's going to tell with the movie, or how he's going to tell it, and what we're going to see happen to the characters we know so well by name alone. But we must keep in mind that those very same characters will be, for all intents and purposes, the same characters in name only. Their stories and backstories will likely be changed to fit the needs of the narrative, not vice versa. I don't know what those needs are, but I hope they're better than what everyone else here seems to be expecting.
That is what I choose to believe.
also because the way you write for tv and movies is hella different
Like that is not wholly relevant to the argument and is a bit snarky, I know, but it is blowing my mind that you - as in, HACKSAW - actually believe what you said you believe about abuse victims.
Holy shit. We got a live one, and words fail me due to the abject shock and horror of it all.
If you really want to engage me on this, you can PM me. My inbox is always open.
The trope that... villains... do villainous things?
Like... Some thread, I think it was an earlier incarnation of this one, had an issue with A Fucking Demon From Hell in the new Ghost Rider comic calling a developmentally disabled character r***rd... A demon. From the biblical hell.
And... I'm trying to figure out if we're supposed to disassociate Nazis from murdering people of Hebrew descent in movies going forward. Or is that not "trope" enough?
Also, I do want to know, did you object as vigorously to the aforementioned scene from Django...? Show of hands, for real. I was here, but not paying as much attention at the time the movie came out.
I mean, what? My brain is actually short-circuiting here. It actually cannot handle that level of over-simplification or dismissiveness.
If you feel differently, that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is victim blaming in the interest of giving a movie company that benefit.
you're kinda contradicting yourself here
you're calling the harley of the comics/cartoon a "straight-up fucking villain", and yet she still has tons of fans and plenty of people that view that version of the character as "a lovable, tragic heroine", so that kind of flies in the face of whatever point you're trying to make
and again, you're minimizing the struggle that people go through every day for the sake of "sympathy" in a movie where an alligator man and a guy who throws boomerangs team up for government wetwork. the things that people in abusive relationships go through is absolutely a real, sympathetic issue, whether you can understand their reasons for being in that relationship or not, and breaking it down the way you did is kind of horrifying
Please stop.
I get the feeling you and I are not ever going to see exactly eye to eye on this particular subject? Perhaps now might be the best time to walk away in amicable disagreement.
You keep using this word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
see, this is where being a comic fan may be coloring my interpretation - I have different expectations for Ayers' level of control over his move, because I'm used to seeing DC as a company that reliably and consistently interferes with creative teams from on high, mandating story changes, dictating plotlines, and so on.
Meanwhile the (possible) portrayal of a woman being tortured into loving a man is something that is lazy. It does not actually portray, with any basis reality, how abuse can actually deconstruct one's sense of self-worth or value.
Worse, it ignores and subverts the stuff that ACTUALLY forces women to remain with abusive men. It reinforces the image of women to be not their own agents, but to be tools in the development of male characters. This subculture has been guilty of that enough times that something different is LONG overdue.
You can portray a man as super evil without torturing a woman in a gratuitous way that is so common it's basically a trope. The writers may just have been too lazy to figure out how.
Nonsense.
At least hamster wheels have aerobic value.
I fucking know exactly what it means. This entire place has turned into a forum of bullies, and God help anyone who doesn't add to the echo chamber.
Or, ok! We can have a full-on discussion of the actual psychological underpinnings of abused/abuser relationships in the comics movie thread! Or we can not. Because I certainly didn't want to write a dissertation on the subject while explaining my viewpoint about a split-second of a clip in a thread about funnybook movies.
But we most certainly can have a reasoned discussion in pms if you like.
you seem to be stuck on the idea that some of us are only taking issue with the possible development simply because it's not how it plays out in the comics
in which case i ask you to please reread a lot of the comments we've been making
your definition of bully is very different from mine
Yeah, I'm picking that up. The comic book people definitely have different expectations than I do vis a vis Suicide Squad.
A forum of "bullies"?
the thing is, my issue as a comic book fan isn't "this is different from the comics, so it's bad" it's "this movie is being made by a company that has tended towards a particular type of storytelling in recent years, one that makes me less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt now"
Yyyyyyeeeeesssssss
Understandable. I don't believe the cynicism, in this case, is warranted, but your I suppose it's not my place to try to invalidate your personal feelings on the matter. Do as you will.
What would you prefer, a conflict-free environment where everyone's thoughts are treated as special and equal (which, ironically, levels the playing field by giving no one any respect)? Disagreement is not bullying, and I think the conversation here has been perfectly civil and reasonable. People are addressing their disagreements on the merit of the argument and I think some degree of understanding of one another is occurring, albeit not agreement. That's how adult conversations are supposed to work.
Except I've never read an issue of Suicide Squad, and I agree with what a lot of them are saying about how it's incredibly problematic.
So... maybe it's not just a comics people thing?
What exactly do you feel is the protocol for when several people disagree with you on a subject? Should everybody but one not respond? Because it seems like when people use the word "dog-piling" it just means that several people are posting their own opinion which aligns with the side you are fighting against.
Read my comments two posts up, duder.