|
Post by Vassaggo on Mar 9, 2022 0:44:42 GMT
Who ever designed and applied Colin Ferril's makeup should get all the oscars in fact after they win they should retire the category. They won.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Mar 9, 2022 3:32:41 GMT
I maybe gonna see this, because unlike Dune 2021, it doesn't seem like it is a wokefest. I could be wrong. Maybe it's a dumb reason but that's why I didn't see dune 2021. But what I need to do is read articles from this director that made it, because i did that for dune 2021 and found out it was a wokefest. Wokefest? Is that some kind of music festival? Not my scene. Those kids and their rockin rock music. Turn it down, ya punks! Am I right? Nah, just a bitter white poster whose probably angry that non-white people were given lead roles in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Mar 9, 2022 3:34:26 GMT
Pretty good movie, but the master plan with the gang of Riddler's at the end was kind of stupid. It did give us that great shot of Batman leading the survivors through the flood waters though.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 9, 2022 15:45:25 GMT
The more I think about it, watching this movie makes me wish that Joker was never made. I liked that movie when it came out, but looking back, I don’t think we needed it, and we certainly don’t need a sequel. This movie does a better job of doing what Joker tried to accomplish, while still being a superhero film. I don't understand why it was called Joker. It has nothing to do with Batman or the Joker. Just have a crazy guy think he's the illegitimate son of a billionaire, any billionaire, and it's the same movie. It had nothing to do with Batman mythos, it was only in the story to get people to see the film. To this day I don't consider it a comic book movie.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Mar 9, 2022 16:51:20 GMT
What did everyone think about the flying squirrel suit? I don’t understand why that had to be so ridiculously grounded. Dude has contacts that record everything he sees. Just give him the damn wings. No explanation needed. I kind of prefer Nolan’s idea of grounded better- where he actually features the comicky stuff but with a semi-plausible explanation (memory cloth). What’s funny is Reeves’ Gotham is so wonderfully comic booky in tone and style that it really doesn’t need the whole grounded angle anyway. I really disliked that scene. Not just the ''wingsuit'', but the cinematography of how he was flying. The camera was awkwardly fixed on his face and we only saw the blurry background as he was flying. Cant understand why you wouldn't have a nice wide angle shot to really capture the geography of Batmans surroundings as hes gliding down.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 9, 2022 20:04:48 GMT
The more I think about it, watching this movie makes me wish that Joker was never made. I liked that movie when it came out, but looking back, I don’t think we needed it, and we certainly don’t need a sequel. This movie does a better job of doing what Joker tried to accomplish, while still being a superhero film. I don't understand why it was called Joker. It has nothing to do with Batman or the Joker. Just have a crazy guy think he's the illegitimate son of a billionaire, any billionaire, and it's the same movie. It had nothing to do with Batman mythos, it was only in the story to get people to see the film. To this day I don't consider it a comic book movie. It is a comic book movie. There’s no getting around that. It just happened to be made by someone who admitted to having come up with it specifically because his comedies weren’t doing well anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 9, 2022 20:46:49 GMT
8/10
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 9, 2022 20:56:43 GMT
I don't understand why it was called Joker. It has nothing to do with Batman or the Joker. Just have a crazy guy think he's the illegitimate son of a billionaire, any billionaire, and it's the same movie. It had nothing to do with Batman mythos, it was only in the story to get people to see the film. To this day I don't consider it a comic book movie. It is a comic book movie. There’s no getting around that. It just happened to be made by someone who admitted to having come up with it specifically because his comedies weren’t doing well anymore. By definition because they use the names 'Joker' and 'the Waynes,' but nothing remotely comic book-y happens in it. It's 'Joker' in name only. (JINO?)
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 9, 2022 22:26:20 GMT
It is a comic book movie. There’s no getting around that. It just happened to be made by someone who admitted to having come up with it specifically because his comedies weren’t doing well anymore. By definition because they use the names 'Joker' and 'the Waynes,' but nothing remotely comic book-y happens in it. It's 'Joker' in name only. (JINO?) A lot of it is based on The Killing Joke, with a major scene taken straight from The Dark Knight Returns. Not to mention the themes that only make sense in relation to Gotham and the world of Batman. In any case, I don't really see how The Batman does a better job of doing what Joker "tried" to accomplish. There are similarities between the portrayals of Joaquin's Joker and this Riddler, but one is explored throughout an entire movie while the other gets a 5 minute exposition dump, and it's questionable how much we're supposed to sympathize with it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 10, 2022 0:20:22 GMT
By definition because they use the names 'Joker' and 'the Waynes,' but nothing remotely comic book-y happens in it. It's 'Joker' in name only. (JINO?) A lot of it is based on The Killing Joke, with a major scene taken straight from The Dark Knight Returns. Not to mention the themes that only make sense in relation to Gotham and the world of Batman. In any case, I don't really see how The Batman does a better job of doing what Joker "tried" to accomplish. There are similarities between the portrayals of Joaquin's Joker and this Riddler, but one is explored throughout an entire movie while the other gets a 5 minute exposition dump, and it's questionable how much we're supposed to sympathize with it. It doesn't matter how many of the story beats are borrowed from the comics, Joker doesn't act or feel like a comic book movie. How is a businessman possibly having an affair in a failing city unique to Gotham? That could've been any wealthy family in any city in America and the story still works. The difference between Joker in that movie and Riddler in The Batman is this story actually featured Batman. It's a significant difference. Joaquin Phoenix was great in Joker. It's a fascinating look at mental illness. But it isn't a Batman movie. It just isn't.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 10, 2022 1:37:15 GMT
By definition because they use the names 'Joker' and 'the Waynes,' but nothing remotely comic book-y happens in it. It's 'Joker' in name only. (JINO?) A lot of it is based on The Killing Joke, with a major scene taken straight from The Dark Knight Returns. Not to mention the themes that only make sense in relation to Gotham and the world of Batman. In any case, I don't really see how The Batman does a better job of doing what Joker "tried" to accomplish. There are similarities between the portrayals of Joaquin's Joker and this Riddler, but one is explored throughout an entire movie while the other gets a 5 minute exposition dump, and it's questionable how much we're supposed to sympathize with it. I wasn’t really referring to the Riddler. I just meant that both movies have a dark and gritty “real world” tone that pay homage to other movies, but Matt Reeves’ movie feels like it has more of a point to make, while Todd Phillips seemed to be more interested in being shocking and edgy.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 10, 2022 2:03:30 GMT
A lot of it is based on The Killing Joke, with a major scene taken straight from The Dark Knight Returns. Not to mention the themes that only make sense in relation to Gotham and the world of Batman. In any case, I don't really see how The Batman does a better job of doing what Joker "tried" to accomplish. There are similarities between the portrayals of Joaquin's Joker and this Riddler, but one is explored throughout an entire movie while the other gets a 5 minute exposition dump, and it's questionable how much we're supposed to sympathize with it. It doesn't matter how many of the story beats are borrowed from the comics, Joker doesn't act or feel like a comic book movie. How is a businessman possibly having an affair in a failing city unique to Gotham? That could've been any wealthy family in any city in America and the story still works. The difference between Joker in that movie and Riddler in The Batman is this story actually featured Batman. It's a significant difference. Joaquin Phoenix was great in Joker. It's a fascinating look at mental illness. But it isn't a Batman movie. It just isn't. It mattering how much a comic book movie takes from comic books seems self-evident to me. "Doesn't feel like a comic book movie" is a criticism often levied at TDK, and I'm sure there's people saying it about The Batman itself, but it's such a vague and odd complaint when comic books vary so much in style and genre, and their movie adaptations reflect that. As far as Joker goes, if Phillips made the same movie about a failed standup comedian turned crazed serial killer who dresses like a clown and spreads chaos with an ambiguous backstory but called it Anonymous Clown In Anonymous City, I'm sure people would notice the similarities. You COULD switch out Thomas Wayne with some random businessman, but you'd lose the juxtaposition of Arthur and Bruce, which is what I think the movie is really about. Why Bruce dresses like a bat and fights crime is something oft explored, but the same attention isn't given to why that crime exists or why Gotham is such a shithole. We see the poverty and mental illness that leads directly to the death of the Waynes and the birth of both Joker and Batman, and I don't think any of it's an accident.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Mar 10, 2022 2:40:47 GMT
It doesn't matter how many of the story beats are borrowed from the comics, Joker doesn't act or feel like a comic book movie. How is a businessman possibly having an affair in a failing city unique to Gotham? That could've been any wealthy family in any city in America and the story still works. The difference between Joker in that movie and Riddler in The Batman is this story actually featured Batman. It's a significant difference. Joaquin Phoenix was great in Joker. It's a fascinating look at mental illness. But it isn't a Batman movie. It just isn't. It mattering how much a comic book movie takes from comic books seems self-evident to me. "Doesn't feel like a comic book movie" is a criticism often levied at TDK, and I'm sure there's people saying it about The Batman itself, but it's such a vague and odd complaint when comic books vary so much in style and genre, and their movie adaptations reflect that. As far as Joker goes, if Phillips made the same movie about a failed standup comedian turned crazed serial killer who dresses like a clown and spreads chaos with an ambiguous backstory but called it Anonymous Clown In Anonymous City, I'm sure people would notice the similarities. You COULD switch out Thomas Wayne with some random businessman, but you'd lose the juxtaposition of Arthur and Bruce, which is what I think the movie is really about. Why Bruce dresses like a bat and fights crime is something oft explored, but the same attention isn't given to why that crime exists or why Gotham is such a shithole. We see the poverty and mental illness that leads directly to the death of the Waynes and the birth of both Joker and Batman, and I don't think any of it's an accident. That still doesn't make it a Batman story. It's about a kid who grew up rich and a loser who has nothing, both of whom possibly share a father. The juxtaposition is at the core of the story, but that doesn't make it a Batman story. Particularly when Bruce is barely in the film, and Batman is nowhere to be found. Hell, The Batman does a better job of illustrating that in one conversation with the Riddler; because at least you've been following the exploits of both characters throughout the film. How grounded in reality TDK or The Batman are may be a matter of opinion, but at the end of the day, both actually feature the character of Batman doing comic book Batman things. Joker is just the story of a troubled soul spiraling out of control. Adding the Wayne family to the background doesn't make it a Batman story; he was becoming unhinged long before he ever suspected his connection to them. Anyway we can agree to disagree on this. I don't see it as a Batman movie, but I'm not starting an online petition or anything.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 10, 2022 3:35:38 GMT
It mattering how much a comic book movie takes from comic books seems self-evident to me. "Doesn't feel like a comic book movie" is a criticism often levied at TDK, and I'm sure there's people saying it about The Batman itself, but it's such a vague and odd complaint when comic books vary so much in style and genre, and their movie adaptations reflect that. As far as Joker goes, if Phillips made the same movie about a failed standup comedian turned crazed serial killer who dresses like a clown and spreads chaos with an ambiguous backstory but called it Anonymous Clown In Anonymous City, I'm sure people would notice the similarities. You COULD switch out Thomas Wayne with some random businessman, but you'd lose the juxtaposition of Arthur and Bruce, which is what I think the movie is really about. Why Bruce dresses like a bat and fights crime is something oft explored, but the same attention isn't given to why that crime exists or why Gotham is such a shithole. We see the poverty and mental illness that leads directly to the death of the Waynes and the birth of both Joker and Batman, and I don't think any of it's an accident. That still doesn't make it a Batman story. It's about a kid who grew up rich and a loser who has nothing, both of whom possibly share a father. The juxtaposition is at the core of the story, but that doesn't make it a Batman story. Particularly when Bruce is barely in the film, and Batman is nowhere to be found. Hell, The Batman does a better job of illustrating that in one conversation with the Riddler; because at least you've been following the exploits of both characters throughout the film. How grounded in reality TDK or The Batman are may be a matter of opinion, but at the end of the day, both actually feature the character of Batman doing comic book Batman things. Joker is just the story of a troubled soul spiraling out of control. Adding the Wayne family to the background doesn't make it a Batman story; he was becoming unhinged long before he ever suspected his connection to them. Anyway we can agree to disagree on this. I don't see it as a Batman movie, but I'm not starting an online petition or anything. You don't think the director could have been making a point about the Batman mythos by recontextualizing its big bad as a tragic antihero, especially by depicting Batman's idol as Joker's villain? I thought it was interesting that Thomas Wayne tried to handle his Arthur problem the same way Batman has his problems for 80 years: punching them and hoping they go away. And not for nothing, but Phillips's movie is not called The Batman. It's called Joker, and Joker is a comic book character. As for Riddler in this, we follow his exploits mostly post-villainy, and there's a difference between hearing he had it rough and seeing it. True, Joker 2019 isn't exactly balanced either, but we've seen Batman's story and the movie knows that. And yeah, I'm not here trying to throw rocks at you. I can certainly respect going to a Batman-related movie and wanting to see a guy in a batsuit kicking some ass.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Mar 10, 2022 6:21:57 GMT
What did everyone think about the flying squirrel suit? I don’t understand why that had to be so ridiculously grounded. Dude has contacts that record everything he sees. Just give him the damn wings. No explanation needed. I kind of prefer Nolan’s idea of grounded better- where he actually features the comicky stuff but with a semi-plausible explanation (memory cloth). What’s funny is Reeves’ Gotham is so wonderfully comic booky in tone and style that it really doesn’t need the whole grounded angle anyway. I really disliked that scene. Not just the ''wingsuit'', but the cinematography of how he was flying. The camera was awkwardly fixed on his face and we only saw the blurry background as he was flying. Cant understand why you wouldn't have a nice wide angle shot to really capture the geography of Batmans surroundings as hes gliding down. Yeah, that sequence wasn't great.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Mar 10, 2022 23:30:58 GMT
Wokefest? Is that some kind of music festival? Not my scene. Those kids and their rockin rock music. Turn it down, ya punks! Am I right? Nah, just a bitter white poster whose probably angry that non-white people were given lead roles in a movie. Nah, they just changed too much from the original novels' characters too much for my taste. In order for , to make it acceptable for the modern day.
But, judging from an interview with the director, it seems like the director actually decided to do that himself. Unlike the studio forcing him to. So this in one case where I blame the director sort of. But I think, had he tried to make it more faithful to the book, the studio would end up forcing him to change things before it started filming.
If it was just a case of changing it to some non-white people in lead roles, and everything else was more accurate I'd have no problem.
But, that's all I will probably say about it.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 11, 2022 14:09:11 GMT
In a conversation with IGN about all the Batman spoilers, Reeves discussed the distinctive design he came up with for Keoghan's Joker. When it came to that typical Joker grin, the director revealed it's actually a result of a congenital disease. The Joker has had that smile since birth. screenrant.com/the-batman-movie-joker-smile-details-matt-reeves/
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 11, 2022 19:36:04 GMT
"Matt Reeves says there are no plans to turn the son of The Batman's Mayor Mitchell into a future Robin, but the idea is interesting." (CBR)
...so he's going to be a future Robin in part 3?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Mar 11, 2022 22:42:39 GMT
"Matt Reeves says there are no plans to turn the son of The Batman's Mayor Mitchell into a future Robin, but the idea is interesting." (CBR) ...so he's going to be a future Robin in part 3? So it wasn't just me. My other Robin suspect was the initiation gang member at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 11, 2022 22:58:05 GMT
|
|