Joker Origin Story Announced
- Thread starter Starbreaker
- Start date
As opposed to the commentators who write off entire series because those series refuse to show the contempt for entire genres that said commentators wished they did?
See, that’s exactly the kind of insightful commentary I’m talking about. Nobody here has actually come right out and said “This series sucks because it doesn’t show enough contempt for the genre.” I lack your psychological awareness, so without you, I would never how full of hate their hearts are. Thanks!
It's amazing how much hate and vitriol Hollywood creators have. I think they should export it-could make a fortune!
The director himself said the whole reason he hijacked the "Joker" name was to tell his own story but sneak it in to get funding as a CBM since he couldn't get it made otherwise. He wanted to make a "real" movie by exploiting the CBM Genre.
That doesn't equal hate at all. It means that he had a specific story he wanted to tell and went about the best method to get it done. Kind of like Lucas making Star Wars when he couldn't get Flash Gordon rights.
Assuming the negative about people is a rather dismal viewpoint, in my opinion.
His comments were the sign he disliked the CBM Genre and just wanted to exploit it.
It's up there with the recent flood of folks taking swipes at the MCU for its success.
There are so many references to the Batman mythos in Joker, that I suspect that he only said those things as a form of trolling. The Joker movie connected to Batman in ways that it really didn't have to if the writers hated the genre.
Every time Todd Philips opened his mouth publicising the film, it made me want to see it less but ultimately IDGAF what he said, the film rose or fell on its own merits. As I’ve said elsewhere in the thread, I don’t think it quite lived up to the hype, but saying that he hates the genre is plain silly.
They were? Is this factually based or interpretation of his words?
You don't say stuff like "Let's sneak this into their system and make a REAL movie" without having some negative views on CBMs.
And apparently Phoenix said that if they could've gotten away with just calling the movie "Arthur" and not having any reference to the Waynes with the rich people being named something else, they'd have done it. Same reason he doesn't want there to be sequels more in line with the Batman Mythos.
Again, it's a presumption of negativity and hostility towards CBMs. Similar views were expressed by crews on SW. What spoke more was the actual product produced.
Again, the Batman story lends itself to such interpretation. Wanting to move away from that mythos, to explore different characters, is perfectly acceptable in a film making process. Otherwise, we would have never gotten Burton's Batman.
Or marketing, to audiences who “don’t like comic book movies.” He was reaching for a broader audience. Quite successfully at that.
I heard that the director invites Comic Book Fans over to his house, but, surprise, it's actually FIGHT CLUB and then he kicks their asses.
True story. He hates Comic Books and fans THAT much.
Right, or just trying to get into the news. Any kind of publicity is good publicity type of thing.
That's the only explanation there is for Anwar's continued need to post in DC threads. It is clear he doesn't like those styles of movies and doesn't want to see any comic film based in that style succeed. A sane person would say, "You know what? That just isn't my cup of tea . I'll stick with Marvel and let others enjoy what they like." It's not like Disney is going to up and change their formula because of the Joker movie. Thank goodness we all have choice.
Man did you ever hit the nail on the head with that line.
That's the only explanation there is for Anwar's continued need to post in DC threads. It is clear he doesn't like those styles of movies and doesn't want to see any comic film based in that style succeed. A sane person would say, "You know what? That just isn't my cup of tea . I'll stick with Marvel and let others enjoy what they like." It's not like Disney is going to up and change their formula because of the Joker movie. Thank goodness we all have choice.
Man did you ever hit the nail on the head with that line.
You invalidated your whole point by turning into a hater with the last line...
Honestly, it blows my mind how there is a thought process of less variety equals a good thing. Like, comic book movies somehow must conform to one model, when the whole concept of comic books was to introduce variety. Don't like a character? Hey, guess what? A new one will be coming out soon. Don't care for a story style? Well, you're in luck as they are producing a new character with a new story style.
Batman, of all the comic properties, lends itself very well to be adapated. From Adam West's high camp, to Burton and Nolan's more grounded approach. Animated properties, and video games. The huge variety of Batman story types speaks for itself-variety is a good thing!
Okay, I've been out of this thread for a day or two, and the discussion has moved along, so I'm happy to drop almost all of my previous ongoing debates. However, I wanted to follow up on something, because it struck me as even odder than all the rest of @Anwar 's arguments.
To set the stage, when I pointed out that contrary to what he had claimed, Arthur doesn't get violent with Sophie on-screen, to which he then claimed that it was later implied that Arthur had killed her. When I asked how, this was his answer:
First off, no. Not obvious at all. At least not to me, as the thought hadn't even crossed my mind until some people brought it up afterwards. Which brings me to second, that's not an answer. Please, do point out to dimwitted old me where and how the movie implied that Arthur killed Sophie.
To set the stage, when I pointed out that contrary to what he had claimed, Arthur doesn't get violent with Sophie on-screen, to which he then claimed that it was later implied that Arthur had killed her. When I asked how, this was his answer:
First off, no. Not obvious at all. At least not to me, as the thought hadn't even crossed my mind until some people brought it up afterwards. Which brings me to second, that's not an answer. Please, do point out to dimwitted old me where and how the movie implied that Arthur killed Sophie.