erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Jan 9, 2020 2:59:23 GMT
Leading Neurocriminologist has spent over 40 years studying the brains of Violent criminals and was floored by the psychological accuracy of Todd Philpp's Joker linkPretentious SJW "Film Twitter" Twats OWNED!! Good thing Phillips still has the rabid mouthbreathers on Movie Awards to take them down.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 9, 2020 9:40:11 GMT
"According to the neurocriminologist, the script—from Phillips and Scott Silver—authentically traces the way a man could be driven to deeply troubling acts of violence by a combination of genetics, childhood trauma, untreated mental illness, and societal provocation."
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
Is that it? Is that his 4 decades of study worth of insight? Is maybe his thinking that he'd never expect such a popular, mainstream, stupid looking movie to portray this accurately? That maybe I could understand in that context, but framing this as if he's making this out to be some sort of pop cultural revelation is... Stupid.
Almost as stupid as a movie that portrays 99.9% of the people this guy comes into contact with as instigators, and then expects us to take the movie seriously in conjunction with descriptions of its nuance or depth.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 9, 2020 17:59:18 GMT
"According to the neurocriminologist, the script—from Phillips and Scott Silver—authentically traces the way a man could be driven to deeply troubling acts of violence by a combination of genetics, childhood trauma, untreated mental illness, and societal provocation." LOOOOOOOOOOOL Is that it? Is that his 4 decades of study worth of insight? Is maybe his thinking that he'd never expect such a popular, mainstream, stupid looking movie to portray this accurately? That maybe I could understand in that context, but framing this as if he's making this out to be some sort of pop cultural revelation is... Stupid. Almost as stupid as a movie that portrays 99.9% of the people this guy comes into contact with as instigators, and then expects us to take the movie seriously in conjunction with descriptions of its nuance or depth. He's clearly smarter than you.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 9, 2020 22:25:28 GMT
"According to the neurocriminologist, the script—from Phillips and Scott Silver—authentically traces the way a man could be driven to deeply troubling acts of violence by a combination of genetics, childhood trauma, untreated mental illness, and societal provocation." LOOOOOOOOOOOL Is that it? Is that his 4 decades of study worth of insight? Is maybe his thinking that he'd never expect such a popular, mainstream, stupid looking movie to portray this accurately? That maybe I could understand in that context, but framing this as if he's making this out to be some sort of pop cultural revelation is... Stupid. Almost as stupid as a movie that portrays 99.9% of the people this guy comes into contact with as instigators, and then expects us to take the movie seriously in conjunction with descriptions of its nuance or depth. He's clearly smarter than you. Damn, your comment is almost as insightful as his!
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 9, 2020 22:35:23 GMT
Part of me really wants this to win everything under the sun simply for the memes...
But a lot of me still remembers Due Date.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jan 9, 2020 22:36:45 GMT
I can't tell who's more annoying anymore. Joker fanboys or Joker butthurt haters.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 9, 2020 22:51:34 GMT
I can't tell who's more annoying anymore. Joker fanboys or Joker butthurt haters. I'm thinking the latter given the propensity to beat the movie and whoever talks about it down in a remorseless way
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 10, 2020 0:24:11 GMT
Part of me really wants this to win everything under the sun simply for the memes... But a lot of me still remembers Due Date. Hey...Due Date had a couple of pretty funny lines.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jan 11, 2020 0:54:47 GMT
I've been meaning to write an actual follow-up to my original comment since the day I watched this, but then came Christmas and I also spent a few days traveling after that, so I couldn't get to it before. But we're here now, so let me bust out some freezing cold takes that everyone else has already debated to the ground half a decade ago while I was looking somewhere else. I'll do this in bullet points because basically everything I have to say about this film has already been said by others much better (and more succinctly, sorry) than I possibly could. - Devilishly clever of Lucrecia Martel to use this film’s Golden Lion win as a way to get back at Venice for keeping Zama out of competition. I’m really looking forward to when Claire Denis is president of the Cannes jury and has her revenge on Thierry Frémaux’s persistent snubbing of her films by awarding the Palme d’Or to volume I of Rian Johnson’s Star Wars trilogy in 2023. - Predictably enough, I'm in the camp that found this hopelessly underdeveloped and poorly executed. It touches on a wide range of dense, thorny subjects but says nothing new or substantial about any of them. Its central themes of "mental illness is neglected on both interpersonal and governmental levels" and "social inequality bad" are spat out point blank, and Phillips does absolutely nothing with them beyond hitting the exact same notes again and again for 2 hours. Like, very groundbreaking ideas you got there, movie! Fascinating, deep & insightful stuff! No one's ever done it before! Its permanent mode is "people are poor except the very few who aren't and everyone is cartoonishly hostile all the time always and that's sad", and never ever anything else. You can find 10-minute video essays by amateurs on YouTube that have more complexity and political weight than that. It’s as if Phillips had a string of ideas as to what would make for cool and memorable individual scenes, but no narrative or thematic vision as to how to connect them cohesively. - It also completely fails to examine Arthur's psyche and motivations in any concrete way. It’s a character study that says nothing about its central character. Arthur has no political inclinations, nor does he have any connection to the protesters who are inspired by him; the riots are a parallel element that never truly justifies its place in the story. The film occasionally hints at the fact that Arthur craves admiration (from Franklin, from Sophie, from the world at large) but never follows up on that, nor does that seem to really influence his actions. Take the Zazie Beetz storyline, which on paper is the perfect narrative entry point to offer us a deeper glimpse into Arthur but ultimately winds up entirely wasted. What does an ideal relationship look like to this man? When he fantasizes about dating the neighbor, what exactly does he envision? What does he aspire to? What do women represent to him, and what does he expect from them? None of that is answered, because Sophie’s just kinda there when convenient. Beetz has minimal screentime and next to no relevant dialogue beyond saying “I think the Joker is a hero” that one time, so all of that goes unanswered. - The ending makes that indecisiveness even more frustrating, because the entire story builds up to the easy out of “maybe it was all in his head”, and that runs the risk of rendering any close analysis of the film’s internal logic entirely irrelevant. “It doesn’t have to make total sense or be deep because it’s the ramblings of a mad man” is reductive and boring; it’s the obvious exit. The way Phillips skirts questions from interviewers with “I don’t know, man, there are many ways to read it” just highlights how on the fence and noncommittal the whole project really is, which is not the best approach to adopt when you set out to make a film about difficult subjects that actually require some care and thought go into the writing. - I do concede that it gets slightly better as it goes along, but the opening 40 minutes thoroughly burned through every ounce of good will that I had and it never did anything to recover it. Many of those opening scenes are so comically exaggerated, so maudlin, melodramatic and exploitative, that they almost felt like satire. The imagined bit with Arthur at the Murray Franklin show is by far one of the worst, most ill-conceived and miscalculated moments of the year. "🌸 My mother always tells me my purpose is to bring laughter and joy to the world! :3 :3 :3 🌸🌸" and that "You're a very good boy, son" nonsense were honestly baffling. It has the subtlety of a sledgehammer; it's Joker in the Dark with Phoenix subbing for Björk, except Von Trier had the good sense to be in on the joke. So much of what Phillips is trying to deliver earnestly here just strains credulity, and the impulse to spell everything out to the audience constantly works to the film's detriment. - All the talk about how violent and disturbing it was had me expecting something a lot filthier and more daring. It doesn't probe deep enough to really disturb. It masks its utter hollowness with with a gloomy color palette and droning string music, but none of that makes it any deeper or more affecting. 871 random scenes of Arthur dancing isn’t mournful or poetic, it’s just repetitive. (That isn't to say that the tech work itself is bad; the cinematography, period design and Guðnadóttir's score are all quite good, and I don't mind seeing them get so many accolades. It's just that they're not in service of worthwhile storytelling; they're merely the front Phillips uses to give this script the sheen of depth and importance that it doesn't earn on its own merits.) - In hindsight I can definitely see why the response following its festival debut was so heated and why those initial audiences thought this was a dangerous film that might inspire real-life violence, but watching it so long after that original wave of hype and controversy died down makes that caution stand out as pretty silly. At the end of the day, this film doesn't make a definitive statement any which way. It's so vague and empty that you could project multiple messages and ideologies onto it, and that's why it could never be the explosive agitprop that it was propped up to be online. Thematically speaking, there's hardly anything there to engage with at all, and certainly nothing to be alarmed by. - Phoenix is one of my favorite actors and I will say that he had one legitimately strong scene that he knocked out of the park (the talk show at the end), but other than that none of what he did here worked for me at all. Much like Malek last year, it's all surface. This Joker is a mere collection of tics and weird mannerisms, and there's no character there beyond that. It's nothing but a louder, more hysterical rehash of what Phoenix has already done to much more effective results in films like The Master and You Were Never Really Here, both of which had more capable directors and stronger screenplays that offered better insights into their characters' inner lives. - I have nothing against Todd Phillips (at least I didn't before this), but he really exposed himself quite embarrassingly with this film and the promotional tour for it. He frames his sociopolitical critique so as to condemn the privileged elite for their indifference towards the strife of the poor. He goes as far as to write a scene with a violent riot taking place right at the pearly gates of a fancy theater (alliterations not intended); the people get abused by the police while the rich sit inside a comfy palace delighting themselves with a Chaplin screening. It’s very clear which side of that equation Todd Phillips the wealthy Hollywood filmmaker belongs to; he’s very much part of the demographic that he’s demonizing, especially given his deliberate decision to portray cinema as the hobby of the villainous elites. For this particular message to be delivered by this particular person without any hint of self-critique or self-acknowledgement is about as clueless as, I don’t know, an entire roster of jet-flying celebrities being pseudo-woke by lecturing the audience at home about the need to fight climate change. And I’m gauging that none of us here appreciate that, aye. - Furthermore: the Jenny Nicholson video articulates this brilliantly, but Phillips’ insistence on using both this film and the interviews he’s giving for it as a platform to whine about PC culture killing his dreams of a Hangover Part IV reaches stratospheric levels of petulance and ridiculousness. In another stunning instance of thematic confusion, Phillips has Arthur go on a diatribe on live TV against some fragile, offended, pearl-clutching old lady about how people like her act as arbiters of good taste and of what subjects comedians have permission to joke about. And that... is supremely dumb, not only because raunchy R-rated comedies are still thriving in spite of Phillips' assessment of his own career and of the zeitgeist at large (the fact that the director of The Hangover Part III blames audiences for killing comedy is a marvel of unintended humor), but also because— and this seems a little important— that has fucking nothing to do with the film. Arthur doesn’t bomb his shows because his humor is offensive, he bombs because he’s literally mentally ill and cannot perform on stage. Political correctness does not factor into the plot at all. That speech that Arthur gives on TV comes out of nowhere, and it’s yet another evidence of Phillips’ utter thematic incoherence that he’ll hijack the most important scene in the entire script to get on a soapbox and vent frustrations that are entirely unjustified and disconnected from the story he’s trying to tell.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jan 11, 2020 0:57:34 GMT
Also (because I don't feel that I've rambled enough yet as it is), a couple more points that don't really pertain to the film itself but are related to the general conversation surrounding it.
- Like I said, I do love me some Joaquin most of the time and what I'm about to say didn't detract from my opinion of what's actually on screen, but every news item I've read about his behavior on set is a very bad look. To hear that he was so difficult to work with that he was out there fighting with De Niro and causing crew members (like some of the makeup team) to quit isn't cute, and it isn't a genius artist at work. I don't subscribe to this notion that being a dick somehow adds mystique or merit to art, especially in a case such as this one where I don't even think Phoenix's is a good performance to begin with. People like Phillips applauding this shtick and calling it ~beautiful~ are out of their minds. Just imagine any woman pulling this shit; replace Phoenix with an actress throwing tantrums and causing folks to quit because she simply won’t let the crew do their jobs and tell me these same people would cheer for that and call it the beauty of the artistic process.
- Finally, there's no reason this had to be to be a Joker film at all. It does nothing substantial with the superhero format, and it gains nothing by using previously known characters to tell this story. The clear reason why it had to be made this way was that no major studio would fund and release a somber character study about mental illness in this many screens if they didn't have a well-known franchise commodity to get people's asses in theaters, as well as the possibility of crafting an entire cinematic universe out of it should it turn out to be even moderately profitable. Phillips himself is the first to admit that; he describes being able to make this as a heist of sorts, because he's essentially using major studio money to Trojan horse a dark drama as a comic book super villain origin tale. The main appeal of this film to everyone that I've talked to in real life who enjoyed it is that it's "not like other superhero movies"; it's "different"; it stands out because it's "new" and “has serious themes”.
And that brings me to my main point: for all of Joker’s flaws and the fact that Phillips completely lacks the imagination and daring to do anything genuinely intelligent or disruptive with the budget he was able to swindle out of Warner Bros.’ pockets, it's sad that the only way that a film like this can get this much engagement and public interest in 2019/2020 seems to be if it's part of a franchise and served in a neatly familiar package. I really don't understand why so many people who rightfully devote so much of their energy to bashing the MCU and criticizing Kevin Feige for what he's doing to mainstream blockbuster filmmaking are out there championing the DC universe specifically as some sort of antidote to Disney.
To be clear: if you appreciate the DC films, that's perfectly fine; I've enjoyed some of their stuff too, and I have neither the capacity nor the will to influence what anyone else watches. If you get something out of these movies, knock yourself out. It's just that I constantly see folks applauding this one specific studio and rooting for it as if its success somehow detracts from Marvel's, like some stupid tug of war, and that makes absolutely no sense to me. Leave aside the fact that blatantly replicating the MCU's tried and tested formula is just DC’s M.O. now (see Justice League); the very fact that it's so unlikely for people to actually get up and go to a theater to watch something that isn’t tied to a billion-dollar franchise is proof that Feige has won. In order to make theatrical entertainment for adults that tackles difficult subjects like mental illness and class warfare, you need to show Thomas and Martha Wayne getting shot in an alley for the 63rd time this century, otherwise people won’t fucking show up.
And now you have Phillips backtracking on his stance that this was a standalone project with no ties to that DCCU shit, and talking about how he actually wants this to launch a new new cinematic universe with its own Batman film. So yeah, thank Feige when we get that, because everyone else is playing according to his rules now regardless of what logos you get before your weekly serving of franchise fodder.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Jan 11, 2020 1:03:01 GMT
I aint reading all that shit. Write a book
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 11, 2020 1:09:32 GMT
Careful, Zeb31. Don’t make anyone call you the C-word.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Jan 11, 2020 3:58:02 GMT
Is it offensive, when you a person says to another person, they did not understand a film?
If it is, I do not mean, to be offensive.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 4,357
|
Post by Archie on Jan 11, 2020 4:06:40 GMT
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Joker. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical neuroscience most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Arthur's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Joker truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Arthur's existential uncontrollable laughter, which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Todd Phillips's genius wit unfolds itself on their movie screens. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, I DO have a Joker tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothing personal, kid.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 11, 2020 4:12:04 GMT
Zeb31 wonderfully said/written on all points. What bothered me most was the movie's total unwillingness to pick sides, particularly evidenced by the talk-show scene at the end and that totally meaningless diatribe about PC culture. Like, which is it Todd Phillips? Is the Joker a mentally ill maniac that we're supposed to feel conflicted about or a conduit for Phillips's (and presumably the viewers') personal petty frustrations because he can't be both and if he is, than the movie is both stupid and incredibly revealing. The amount of bitching Phillips has done about not having been able to make The Hangover IV on press (which should have absolutely nothing to do with this film, one would think) confirms his laziness and entitlement, and speaks to why at least some viewers have connected so much with the film/character/performance. If the film had truly been more subtle or observational (and cut that stupid offensive humor monologue) it might have worked much better, but there's something smug and even self-satisfied about how Phillips' advances the thesis of how victimized people continue to victimize others. It's HUGELY problematic to paint Fleck as a victim of unambiguous cruelty at literally every turn and then pretend like you're not meant to sympathize with him as he shoots and kills a man on live TV or at least feel a sense of catharsis (and we know that viewers did--Nicholson's video shows evidence of that too). By doing this, Phillips is either profoundly ignorant or straight-up victim blaming and encouraging his viewers to do the same, but given how Phillips creates the world in such [revealingly] black and white terms I'm inclined to go with the latter. The tagline itself does this. It's as if everything in the movie is collectively adding up to: "yeah, that's right, see what you get, society?" Phillips isn't making an objective statement on human behavior (or if that's what he meant to do, he absolutely failed), he's championing vindictive anarchic cynicism. Taxi Driver does the opposite of what Joker does in that talk show scene, contrasting Bickle's unhinged spree with Iris's screams of terror. I wish Phillips had watched it a few more times before ripping it off.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 11, 2020 4:40:50 GMT
Also, just to piggyback off of something, if you like a movie, that’s fine. Your reasoning is yours, and mine is mine.
But can we please put to bed the fucking “You don’t get it” argument? In general? It’s one of the most condescending, hilariously nondescript defense in debating films, and it’s a cheap last resort at deflection, when someone can’t think of anything else to throw into a conversation.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 11, 2020 5:25:58 GMT
Also, just to piggyback off of something, if you like a movie, that’s fine. Your reasoning is yours, and mine is mine. But can we please put to bed the fucking “You don’t get it” argument? In general? It’s one of the most condescending, hilariously nondescript defense in debating films, and it’s a cheap last resort at deflection, when someone can’t think of anything else to throw into a conversation. This goes for basically every movie ever.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 11, 2020 6:00:42 GMT
Also, just to piggyback off of something, if you like a movie, that’s fine. Your reasoning is yours, and mine is mine. But can we please put to bed the fucking “You don’t get it” argument? In general? It’s one of the most condescending, hilariously nondescript defense in debating films, and it’s a cheap last resort at deflection, when someone can’t think of anything else to throw into a conversation. It's overused but if someone is saying something factually incorrect about a movie, or not interpreting it in the way the filmmakers intended and using that as a criticism (especially when claiming the filmmakers intent was different than what it was, as is frequently the case in think pieces about Joker) it is fair to say they don't "get" it. Saying they don't understand instead might be a less aggressive wording but with the same meaning.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 11, 2020 7:08:04 GMT
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Joker. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical neuroscience most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Arthur's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Joker truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Arthur's existential uncontrollable laughter, which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Todd Phillips's genius wit unfolds itself on their movie screens. What fools.. how I pity them. And yes, by the way, I DO have a Joker tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothing personal, kid. Not sure if you're the first person to do this or not, but whoever was first deserves a fucking medal. I've long been gestating over a theory that the Venn diagram of Joker fans and Rick and Morty fans is a flat fucking circle. Have yet to find any exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jan 11, 2020 8:37:10 GMT
I don't think this movie warrants this much discussion. It's just big-budget camp.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 539
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Jan 11, 2020 8:49:57 GMT
One, is in no position, to contradict a person's opinion, about a film, when the latter's first criticism, of said film, is about how rigged, was its prize acquisition.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 11, 2020 17:37:24 GMT
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Joker. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical neuroscience most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Arthur's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny - they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Joker truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Arthur's existential uncontrollable laughter, which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Todd Phillips's genius wit unfolds itself on their movie screens. What fools.. how I pity them. And yes, by the way, I DO have a Joker tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only - and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothing personal, kid. Not sure if you're the first person to do this or not, but whoever was first deserves a fucking medal. I've long been gestating over a theory that the Venn diagram of Joker fans and Rick and Morty fans is a flat fucking circle. Have yet to find any exceptions. I haven't watched Rick and Morty, but I know a couple people irl who love it and haven't seen Joker, but I can absolutely see them loving it. I can't really articulate why, so I would be interested in reading your theory.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 11, 2020 18:03:01 GMT
Also, just to piggyback off of something, if you like a movie, that’s fine. Your reasoning is yours, and mine is mine. But can we please put to bed the fucking “You don’t get it” argument? In general? It’s one of the most condescending, hilariously nondescript defense in debating films, and it’s a cheap last resort at deflection, when someone can’t think of anything else to throw into a conversation. And the horrible thing about Joker is that it literally implements the “You didn’t get it” defense into the film itself. So not only can you use it to destroy liberal snowflakes on Twitter, but you can do so in a way that oh-so-cleverly references the film itself!
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 11, 2020 18:13:46 GMT
Not sure if you're the first person to do this or not, but whoever was first deserves a fucking medal. I've long been gestating over a theory that the Venn diagram of Joker fans and Rick and Morty fans is a flat fucking circle. Have yet to find any exceptions. I haven't watched Rick and Morty, but I know a couple people irl who love it and haven't seen Joker, but I can absolutely see them loving it. I can't really articulate why, so I would be interested in reading your theory. I mean, I think the fact that the Rick and Morty meme can be so easily adapted to fit Joker shows the comparison exactly. They’re incredibly similar to each other: incredibly shallow, unbearably cynical to the point of being nihilist about humanity just for the sake of seeming cool and edgy, surface-level and dumb in every way that convinces people it has “ideas” when it’s really saying absolutely nothing at all, not to mention features a horribly toxic protagonist that the worst of the audience members identify with as some sort of hero. Which brings me to the point that the most similar thing is that these two things share the same toxicity among the most rabid faction of the fanbase, they both appeal to this same group of incel-y men who will herald the work as complex and beyond the intelligence of others, use that “You didn’t get it!” response to counter any sort of criticism, which is often far more nuanced than the praise. Don’t get me wrong, I have good friends who are ... moderate fans of both of these things. I’m not saying that someone is inherently problematic just for liking them, so I don’t want that to be misconstrued. But I do find that how someone feels about one they feel about the other, and even the people I know who like Rick and Morty are the first to admit that it attracts a horribly toxic fanbase, and I think the same can’t really be denied as it applies to Joker...
|
|
|
Post by Angry Moe on Jul 16, 2020 22:54:10 GMT
|
|