WittyUsername

I’m fairly certain that the 2016 film would’ve at least have made more money domestically if it had been the long awaited GB3.

Tell that to the people who died in plane and car crashes, or the people who died because their doctors disappeared in the middle of their procedures.

We’re not talking about Black Panther, we’re talking about Hustlers.

What context?

I never claimed that people are saying that robbing men is empowering. I’m saying that the film is being praised as female empowerment in spite of the fact that its premise involves drugging and robbing men. My point was that if critics understand nuance enough to be able to accept something with a problematic premise as progressive, then there’s no reason they should be attacking Joker for revolving around a mentally ill white man who turns to violence.

Have you read any of the reviews?

I apologize that I’m once again bringing up the controversy surrounding Joker, but seeing how well Hustlers is doing both critically and financially has made me once again shake my head in frustration. So, Joker is a film that promotes intel culture and troubled white men, eh? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t Hustlers also be seen as problematic? That film is literally about strippers who drug and rob unsuspecting men, which is a blatantly criminal thing to do, and one of the actresses in the movie has actually done such things in real life. I’m not saying Hustlers is a bad film, but if Joker is getting crapped on for its supposedly problematic narrative, then why is Hustlers being praised as an example of female empowerment?

I could potentially see them doing that if for no reason other than to be able to market Avatar 2 as the sequel to the highest grossing film of all time.

But many of them have been approaching their critiques specifically from the angle that they think it’s a film that’ll be hailed by the alt-right, which is stupid. That’s almost as bad as those dumb Mediaversity “reviews”.

Shouldn’t this be certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes by now?

These critics seem to think it’s a film that promotes incel culture and white supremacy. I may not have seen the movie, but I know for a fact that’s bullshit. Entertainment Weekly specifically acknowledged that they couldn’t rate the movie objectively, which is why they didn’t even give it an actual rating. Then you have reviews that say things like this

One thing I don’t get; does it seems odd to anyone else that DC has been trying to to make the Suicide Squad their equivalent of the Guardians of the Galaxy for the past five years? I get that following trends has always been a thing in the world of entertainment, but if you want to provide your answer to the fun and colorful zaniness of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, why go with a team of unpleasant criminals that has “suicide” in their name? Before anyone comments, I know that the Guardians of the Galaxy were all criminals as well, but they weren’t really portrayed as bad people, and a major part of the first film was them deciding to be heroes on their own. There’s also a big emphasis on family in those films. With the Suicide Squad, there’s nothing inherently fun or lovable about a premise of murderous criminals being coerced or threatened into doing the government’s dirty work for them. That’s really not the kind of premise for a movie that most parents would be willing to take their kids to. Honestly, if WB/DC wants to follow what has made the GotG movies so successful, wouldn’t the Green Lantern Corps or the Doom Patrol make more sense?

I was going to post this over on the Joker forum, but I’m kind of worried that I might get in trouble for it over there, so just to be safe, I’ll be posting it here. Anyway, the discourse surrounding the movie has officially ruined my excitement for it. I thought the discourse surrounding Captain Marvel was annoying, but this Joker stuff is worse. At least in the case of CM, you could sort of laugh at the people who kept obsessing over Brie Larson. With Joker, it seems like critics and bloggers are actively promoting toxic discussions with all their talk about incels and deranged white men. I’m by no means the kind of person who identifies with the right, but what in God’s name do these “critics” think they’re accomplishing with this stuff? All they’re doing is drumming up backlash for themselves, and support from the alt-right crowd for a movie that many of them probably wouldn’t have otherwise cared about. And for God’s sake, can we please stop suggesting that the movie might inspire violence?

Michael Rooker’s in this after all? Wonder who he’s playing.

Are you saying that because you don’t like James Gunn?

Is there proof that she slept with people to get better reviews?

It barely made more on OW than the Nolan Batman films, despite having 3D tickets and Thursday night previews. I’d hardly call that impressive.

As much as I liked to believe at the time that BvS had a lot of hype behind it, I sadly don’t think that was the case in hindsight. Maybe it was because of how divisive Man of Steel was, but people seemed pretty apprehensive about the film from the moment it was announced. That’s not to say there was zero hype for it, but it wasn’t all across the board like it was for The Force Awakens or Endgame. With the exception of the Comic Con trailer, the marketing was pretty divisive, as were the casting choices. There was never any chance that it would score the highest OW of all time. I don’t even think it would’ve crossed $200 million on OW. Sure, it had a higher opening day than something like The Avengers, but that’s because it had Thursday night previews and Good Friday going for it.

I wish I could get a handle on what exactly the problem some people have with the concept of a Joker stand-alone is. Sure, when it was first announced, I didn’t like the idea of it either, but at the time, that was mostly because I was hoping that DC would be able to make a steady recovery with their cinematic universe after the success of Wonder Woman (remember, the project was first announced before Justice League tanked). At this point, though, why not? DC can’t compete with Marvel, so why not do something that Marvel would never do? Is the problem that the Joker shouldn’t have a backstory, or do people really believe that portraying the Joker as a tragic villain will somehow incite violence? If it’s the former, then I’d normally agree with that, but considering that Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is supposedly never going to face off against a version of Batman, I don’t think it matters. If it’s the latter, well, I’ve already expressed my thoughts on that over on the Joker forum.

That does look significantly better, but is there anyway to verify that it’s real?

It kind of seemed like they basically admitted that they couldn’t objectively critique the film, which makes you wonder why they published a review to begin with.

If critics are going to bash a movie for political reasons, it probably won’t be this one, since it obviously has the painfully straightforward message of “Nazis are bad”.

That’s basically what happened with Green Book. It’s probably the most controversial Best Picture winger since Crash.

I just found out that this movie is PG-13. Maybe that’s part of the problem with it? If you’re going to make a dark satire about Nazis, it would probably work best if you went all out and did something so absurdly screwed up that it would be sure to stick with people. A PG-13 rating suggests that they were going the safe route with this.