|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 20, 2020 20:07:40 GMT
Neither the character nor the world he inhabits are particularly stylized in any way. Nobody has super powers, gadgets or costumes. If you want to argue on principle that it's a CBM I wouldn't disagree, since it's based on comic book IP. I disagree with this notion, but I wouldn't argue it. But I don't see how it could 'feel like a comic book movie' when it makes no attempt to do so. Perhaps it's a burden of doubt for me. They're characters from a comic book movie, ergo it feels like a comic book movie. Once that's the premise, the follow-through could be anything. Captain America Winter Soldier...probably has more elements considered required by the genre comparable to other material, but part of its staying power (in my opinion) is it took the time to indulge themes of over surveillance, fear, preemptive strikes against terrorism and who's really in charge of initiatives like this and wrapped it in a Captain America movie.
Thor Ragnarok is another one (I think) that deals with hereditary rule, toxic colonialism and what it means to leave it behind to save a people all packaged into a Thor movie. Part of their brilliance (I think) is making them so entertaining and fun it can get away with below surface themes without being pretentious.
To be fair too, I didn't factor style or aesthetic into what it means to be a comic book movie, but I do think the best of them raise questions that linger in the real world.
That's fair, thematic elements are essential to a film's relationship to its audience. I see an enormous difference between what MCU films are trying to do from something like Joker, not just in tone but in general aesthetic and atmosphere. MCU flicks are comic book characters in a comic book world. Joker doesn't feel like it's trying to insert comic book tropes into its story. It has its own surrealism in how it deals with mental illness, but it has its feet on the ground in terms of tone. That's the key difference, for me at least. I see where you're coming from though, and I respect your perspective on what makes a CBM a CBM.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 20, 2020 20:10:32 GMT
Perhaps it's a burden of doubt for me. They're characters from a comic book movie, ergo it feels like a comic book movie. Once that's the premise, the follow-through could be anything. Captain America Winter Soldier...probably has more elements considered required by the genre comparable to other material, but part of its staying power (in my opinion) is it took the time to indulge themes of over surveillance, fear, preemptive strikes against terrorism and who's really in charge of initiatives like this and wrapped it in a Captain America movie.
Thor Ragnarok is another one (I think) that deals with hereditary rule, toxic colonialism and what it means to leave it behind to save a people all packaged into a Thor movie. Part of their brilliance (I think) is making them so entertaining and fun it can get away with below surface themes without being pretentious.
To be fair too, I didn't factor style or aesthetic into what it means to be a comic book movie, but I do think the best of them raise questions that linger in the real world.
I'm with Rey Kahuka on this. The movie is about a character that based on a cbm, but that character doesn't even share much similarities with comic Joker. Pretty much the ONLY thing that movie has which is derived from the comics is the name. Nothing else, neither the personality, characteristics, back story, action, etc. seem remotely comic booky. If I made a movie about a character named Tony Stark who's an alcoholic who gets called Ironman because he won the Ironman triathlon competition, would that be considered a comicbook movie? I doubt it. Ironically, the most 'comic bookish' aspect of Joker is my least favorite part of the story-- the forced inclusion of the Wayne family. The entire script works just as well if they're a wealthy family with a different surname. Constantly reminding the audience this is a Batman reference is distracting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 20:34:02 GMT
Perhaps it's a burden of doubt for me. They're characters from a comic book movie, ergo it feels like a comic book movie. Once that's the premise, the follow-through could be anything. Captain America Winter Soldier...probably has more elements considered required by the genre comparable to other material, but part of its staying power (in my opinion) is it took the time to indulge themes of over surveillance, fear, preemptive strikes against terrorism and who's really in charge of initiatives like this and wrapped it in a Captain America movie.
Thor Ragnarok is another one (I think) that deals with hereditary rule, toxic colonialism and what it means to leave it behind to save a people all packaged into a Thor movie. Part of their brilliance (I think) is making them so entertaining and fun it can get away with below surface themes without being pretentious.
To be fair too, I didn't factor style or aesthetic into what it means to be a comic book movie, but I do think the best of them raise questions that linger in the real world.
That's fair, thematic elements are essential to a film's relationship to its audience. I see an enormous difference between what MCU films are trying to do from something like Joker, not just in tone but in general aesthetic and atmosphere. MCU flicks are comic book characters in a comic book world. Joker doesn't feel like it's trying to insert comic book tropes into its story. It has its own surrealism in how it deals with mental illness, but it has its feet on the ground in terms of tone. That's the key difference, for me at least. I see where you're coming from though, and I respect your perspective on what makes a CBM a CBM. Thanks man, as do I you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:00:37 GMT
Perhaps it's a burden of doubt for me. They're characters from a comic book movie, ergo it feels like a comic book movie. Once that's the premise, the follow-through could be anything. Captain America Winter Soldier...probably has more elements considered required by the genre comparable to other material, but part of its staying power (in my opinion) is it took the time to indulge themes of over surveillance, fear, preemptive strikes against terrorism and who's really in charge of initiatives like this and wrapped it in a Captain America movie.
Thor Ragnarok is another one (I think) that deals with hereditary rule, toxic colonialism and what it means to leave it behind to save a people all packaged into a Thor movie. Part of their brilliance (I think) is making them so entertaining and fun it can get away with below surface themes without being pretentious.
To be fair too, I didn't factor style or aesthetic into what it means to be a comic book movie, but I do think the best of them raise questions that linger in the real world.
I'm with Rey Kahuka on this. The movie is about a character that based on a cbm, but that character doesn't even share much similarities with comic Joker. Pretty much the ONLY thing that movie has which is derived from the comics is the name. Nothing else, neither the personality, characteristics, back story, action, etc. seem remotely comic booky. If I made a movie about a character named Tony Stark who's an alcoholic who gets called Ironman because he won the Ironman triathlon competition, would that be considered a comicbook movie? I doubt it. But he is meant to be that Joker from Batman's story. I don't know how this Tony Stark film would work, but there's a difference between lifting a name from a phone book that's shared by a popular character and being that popular character. Is the Tony Stark who gets called Iron Man thee Tony Stark from the comics? With Stark Industries, same parents, Pepper Potts, the whole nine yards?
I think what it means to be a comic book movie is still being defined. Everything about Joker to me read comic booky because the Joker in question is that same Joker with no room for doubt and he was a fully realized interpretation of the Joker by the end.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 20, 2020 21:06:16 GMT
Was it ?
A Superhero movie will never clean up at the Oscars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 21:09:16 GMT
Was it ? A Superhero movie will never clean up at the Oscars. Meh. Prior to one day before the nominees were announced last year, it was a given a superhero movie would never be nominated for Best Picture. Regardless of how you feel about it, it happened. Last year it was inconceivable to be nominated. It's happened twice in a row since. Things change.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 20, 2020 21:35:43 GMT
I'm with Rey Kahuka on this. The movie is about a character that based on a cbm, but that character doesn't even share much similarities with comic Joker. Pretty much the ONLY thing that movie has which is derived from the comics is the name. Nothing else, neither the personality, characteristics, back story, action, etc. seem remotely comic booky.Β If I made a movie about a character named Tony Stark who's an alcoholic who gets called Ironman because he won the Ironman triathlon competition, would that be considered a comicbook movie? I doubt it.Β But he is meant to be that Joker from Batman's story. I don't know how this Tony Stark film would work, but there's a difference between lifting a name from a phone book that's shared by a popular character and being that popular character. Is the Tony Stark who gets called Iron Man thee Tony Stark from the comics? With Stark Industries, same parents, Pepper Potts, the whole nine yards?
I think what it means to be a comic book movie is still being defined. Everything about Joker to me read comic booky because the Joker in question is that same Joker with no room for doubt and he was a fully realized interpretation of the Joker by the end.
That's what I'm saying. This wasn't Joker from Batman. Yeah he had the same name, yeah they gave him a clown makeup, yeah they name dropped the Wayne's, but he still wasn't the same character.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 20, 2020 22:08:41 GMT
No. It's doubtful anyone said that.
... and here come the lightweight troll wannabes, scampering in to fill the void left by our recently departed manus asinus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 22:15:23 GMT
But he is meant to be that Joker from Batman's story. I don't know how this Tony Stark film would work, but there's a difference between lifting a name from a phone book that's shared by a popular character and being that popular character. Is the Tony Stark who gets called Iron Man thee Tony Stark from the comics? With Stark Industries, same parents, Pepper Potts, the whole nine yards?
I think what it means to be a comic book movie is still being defined. Everything about Joker to me read comic booky because the Joker in question is that same Joker with no room for doubt and he was a fully realized interpretation of the Joker by the end.
That's what I'm saying. This wasn't Joker from Batman. Yeah he had the same name, yeah they gave him a clown makeup, yeah they name dropped the Wayne's, but he still wasn't the same character. I don't know what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jan 22, 2020 3:48:56 GMT
But he is meant to be that Joker from Batman's story. I don't know how this Tony Stark film would work, but there's a difference between lifting a name from a phone book that's shared by a popular character and being that popular character. Is the Tony Stark who gets called Iron Man thee Tony Stark from the comics? With Stark Industries, same parents, Pepper Potts, the whole nine yards?
I think what it means to be a comic book movie is still being defined. Everything about Joker to me read comic booky because the Joker in question is that same Joker with no room for doubt and he was a fully realized interpretation of the Joker by the end.
That's what I'm saying. This wasn't Joker from Batman. Yeah he had the same name, yeah they gave him a clown makeup, yeah they name dropped the Wayne's, but he still wasn't the same character. But there's no single, definitive incarnation of the Joker. No more than there is of Batman. Cesar Romero's Joker was a prancing crime boss, Nicholson's was a darker, mutilated version of same. Ledger's Joker was a terrorist and an anarchist with no back story whatsoever. With that in mind, I fail to see what invalidates this film's interpretation of the character.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2020 7:12:57 GMT
That's what I'm saying. This wasn't Joker from Batman. Yeah he had the same name, yeah they gave him a clown makeup, yeah they name dropped the Wayne's, but he still wasn't the same character. But there's no single, definitive incarnation of the Joker. No more than there is of Batman. Cesar Romero's Joker was a prancing crime boss, Nicholson's was a darker, mutilated version of same. Ledger's Joker was a terrorist and an anarchist with no back story whatsoever. With that in mind, I fail to see what invalidates this film's interpretation of the character. No superhero.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jan 22, 2020 8:21:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 22, 2020 9:34:08 GMT
That's what I'm saying. This wasn't Joker from Batman. Yeah he had the same name, yeah they gave him a clown makeup, yeah they name dropped the Wayne's, but he still wasn't the same character. But there's no single, definitive incarnation of the Joker. No more than there is of Batman. Cesar Romero's Joker was a prancing crime boss, Nicholson's was a darker, mutilated version of same. Ledger's Joker was a terrorist and an anarchist with no back story whatsoever. With that in mind, I fail to see what invalidates this film's interpretation of the character. ^this. The film's interpretation of the character and archetype is the most mature and profound one. In particular it's an origin story and the Joker's origin, for the most part, was always kept ambiguous or dark. It's speaks to the strength of this charters that it can be interpreted in so many ways, most other (weaker) character fail at that and remain tied to one actor, thus becoming irrelevant with time.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 22, 2020 10:22:34 GMT
One person says Downey Jr should be nominated An Academy member says it won't win an Oscar One person says it will be nominated The first "For Your Consideration" page did not feature actors Someone starts a petition to get Endgame nominated Disney has a For Your Consideration page with multiple nomination suggestions...something every studio has done for years for blockbusters What was posting these links supposed to prove/say/confirm?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2020 10:58:45 GMT
Are those the only instances you could find, where no one said Endgame was supposed to clean up at the Oscars?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2020 11:03:36 GMT
But there's no single, definitive incarnation of the Joker. No more than there is of Batman. Cesar Romero's Joker was a prancing crime boss, Nicholson's was a darker, mutilated version of same. Ledger's Joker was a terrorist and an anarchist with no back story whatsoever. With that in mind, I fail to see what invalidates this film's interpretation of the character. ^this. The film's interpretation of the character and archetype is the most mature and profound one.In particular it's an origin story and the Joker's origin, for the most part, was always kept ambiguous or dark. It's speaks to the strength of this charters that it can be interpreted in so many ways, most other (weaker) character fail at that and remain tied to one actor, thus becoming irrelevant with time. Due to it stripping out the superhero/supervillian element, with only a cursory connection remaining. All well and good ... unless you're a superhero fan.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 22, 2020 11:36:42 GMT
^this. The film's interpretation of the character and archetype is the most mature and profound one.In particular it's an origin story and the Joker's origin, for the most part, was always kept ambiguous or dark. It's speaks to the strength of this charters that it can be interpreted in so many ways, most other (weaker) character fail at that and remain tied to one actor, thus becoming irrelevant with time. Due to it stripping out the superhero/supervillian element, with only a cursory connection remaining. All well and good ... unless you're a superhero fan. and unless you are a true Scotsman. ![](https://media.giphy.com/media/gOkkCfEjtscjC/giphy.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 19:09:19 GMT
^this. The film's interpretation of the character and archetype is the most mature and profound one.In particular it's an origin story and the Joker's origin, for the most part, was always kept ambiguous or dark. It's speaks to the strength of this charters that it can be interpreted in so many ways, most other (weaker) character fail at that and remain tied to one actor, thus becoming irrelevant with time. Due to it stripping out the superhero/supervillian element, with only a cursory connection remaining. All well and good ... unless you're a superhero fan. It can do that and still be a comic book movie. Superhero movie is stretching it because the story doesn't lean that way (or incorporate a superhero) but a comic book character is the source material.
I learned from watching it what I've been saying to Martin Scorsese all along: don't shut the door on the potential of comic book films, a comic book film can be anything. The genre's alive and evolving.
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Jan 22, 2020 19:18:51 GMT
Remember when Black Panther was up for Oscars and won Several and the MCU hater trolls whined and b!tched about it, even claimed that Feige/Disney bought off the Academy voters to win them just last year???
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 22, 2020 22:36:46 GMT
Remember when Black Panther was up for Oscars and won Several and the MCU hater trolls whined and b!tched about it, even claimed that Feige/Disney bought off the Academy voters to win them just last year??? If you listen to the MCU jealous trolls, the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the Oscars is like a kid playing with a light switch. Wonder Woman: ON ... no, wait. OFF. Black Panther: OFF Joker: ON funny stuff.
|
|