Ororo Munroe
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Ororo Munroe
-
-
34 minutes ago, Valonqar said:
Haven't seen Joker yet but Aquaman is the best post-Nolan DC movie and the second best SH movie of 2018 (#1 Infinity War). No one will convince me otherwise.
Also, Momoa is the most charismatic SH lead since RDJ.
I agree that Aquaman is the best post-Nolan DC movie. That's not saying much but the third act is good enough to launch it into first place.
Wonder Woman is overrated but Gadot owns that role (even if her dramatic acting could use some work). Momoa is the most charismatic of the bunch but no, not since RDJ. Hemsworth and Pratt > Momoa.
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:
Joker is certainly an Oscar friendly movie. It's gonna do well with in the nternational awards, the guilds and with the HFPA (which is why Bohemian Rhapsody, Vice, and Green Book became competitors last year with zero critics support).
Joker is a comic book movie (as much as its wants to be more) and that alone means it's not Oscar friendly. It may get some recognition with the HFPA but unlike the other movies you mentioned, it's not "feel good" nor does it have a message that Hollywood loves to applaud, in general. So yeah, it's a movie on the bubble during awards season and without great box office reception, it likely doesn't have a chance at any major awards, outside of JP, perhaps.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:
Joker and Jojo Rabbit have the opposite trajectory. Joker is dipping with critics and Jojo is rising. Once Jojo wins Picture, everyone will be screaming that Joker should have won (and it likely won't even be nominated). Like TDK year but with worse reviewed movies on both side (Joker reviews <<<<TDK reviews, Jojo reviews <<<< Slumdog reviews).
Lmao. No. Joker is not an Oscar friendly movie. Without stellar reviews, it was always going to struggle to even get a nomination. It needs to be a big box office hit to have much of a chance now.
I have to say, seeing RT give it the certified fresh label after witholding it for so long and then to take it away a day later... comical.
-
53 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
You are pretending clickbait reviews dont exist lol
I never said they didn't exist. I just don't believe that there is some broad, concerted agenda to add politics into a movie that invites political criticism.
-
20 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
However the political critique in not uniform and has come from American reviewers and we know that American media is notoriously click bait oriented compared to media from other developed countries.
To pretend this is just a typical critique politically minded critique is even more ridiculous based on what we seen so far.
We live in a hyper partisan time and putting a headline "Joke appeals to Incels" gets more clicks, that is a fact.
I wasn't aware that political critique had to be uniform. That American critics would have a different take is hardly suspicious.
I know it's more comforting to believe that Joker really is a masterpiece and anyone who says otherwise has some sort of agenda but that doesn't make the idea any less ridiculous.
-
11 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
Like you do you really think reviewers are not playing up the politics for click bait to generate ad revenue for a lot of failing media companies?
How naive are you guys lol
Its a slow time for entertainment news and really there is no harm here as it just adds buzz to the film.
Here's what I know, political criticism and film criticism are intertwined. Acting like this movie is some special case that calls for suspicion, particularly when it invites political criticism, is absolutely ridiculous.
-
1
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
I find it funny how everything is labeling a conspiracy theory by some mods...
It is well known by everyone adding politics into a movie review generates a lot more buzz and therefore critics are pressured by editors and media companies to generate such reviews to generate ad revenue.
It does not mean that all 'reviews are fake'... it just means that reviews for this film should be looked at with more suspicion compared to the typical film.
So it's cool for the movie to add politics or some sort of social commentary but critics "adding politics" to their reviews should be met with suspicion. The discourse around this movie is so predictable yet hilarious all the same.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, WittyUsername said:
I’m kind of surprised it took this long for the Joker thread to get locked. It seems like there is no way to have a civil discussion about that movie.
In other news, there seems to be virtually no enthusiasm in Birds of Prey, which pleases me.
Maybe not on this forum but it's gotten a good amount buzz on twitter. And though I hate how much Margot and Harley are being shoved at us, I'm not hoping the movie fails. BoP succeeding is more important than something like Joker, especially since the former is connected to the DCEU (or what's left of it).
-
Just clicked on the Todd Phillips trending topic. Good stuff.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Firepower said:
Another Phillips' quote and the only people who post it and triggered/offended by it are famously "woke" users like Ororo and SpiderByte, which proves again that Todd is right.
It's truly no wonder why Todd Phillips appeals to someone like you.
-
1
-
-
So Todd Phillips provides us with another quote that proves he's not very bright or creative. Keep 'em coming, Todd!
-
20 minutes ago, 75Live said:
Remember as the Mods say
NIRD
it's just easier sometimes
But you may like the discussion with that wall, so if that works, go for it 😛
You would have been better off posting nothing because this is just corny.
-
8 hours ago, TMP said:
No it's not, it was a two week threadban
Hey, my ban was supposed to be lifted in late August and here we are almost at the beginning of October and I still can't post in the Joker thread. Not that I even care at this point because I would likely just get banned again. 😂
-
3 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
It doesn’t. That’s exactly her point. Disney is a big corporation. They don’t care about social justice, except when it helps their bottom line.
Who didn't already know this? I'd say even most people who applaud what Disney is doing know that they are doing it because being "woke" sells.
-
3 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
She actually did say that them identifying that there was some sort of problem in their work is a good start. She simply said that they’re doing it in a very cynical and focus tested sort of way. At no point did she ever say that diversity is a bad thing. In fact, she went out of her way to say that Disney could probably use more inclusion behind the scenes for their movies. Again, she criticized the fact that this movie has a white director.
Uh huh. And how does that make Disney different from most other big studios and businesses? They can all do better and more. Using their racist past to suggest that current efforts are lazy just sets off my bs radar.
-
19 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
The majority of Disney movies have white leads, including the Beauty and the Beast remake, where a white woman is the protagonist. By your logic, she’d give that movie a pass, but she doesn’t. Where are you even getting this idea that she wants white women to be the center of attention, especially when you’re obviously not even remotely familiar with her?
Don't worry, you won't understand anyway.
Here's the thing though, if you want Disney to acknowledge its racist or problematic past, fine...I certainly don't object. But the minute you start suggesting that wanting to be more inclusive or "woke" is somehow wrong or "lazy" the red flag goes up for me. Because guess what? You can think Disney is not doing enough and still acknowledge that what they are doing is good. To try to put a negative spin on portraying more empowering women characters or adding more diversity is pure silliness. There is no doubt in my mind that the people doing this have some other agenda in play, whether they are just Disney haters or dislike the "woke" movement...something else is driving this criticism.
-
7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
At no point in the video does she ever even imply that she wants white women to be the center of attention. She even criticizes the fact that Disney got a white person to direct their remake of Aladdin.
What she suggested they do is to actually address these controversial topics, rather than simply pretending that they never existed to begin with. If you want to get a better idea of what she’s saying, you could simply watch the video. Even if you don’t like it, you’d at least know what her arguments are.
Why would she if she doesn't want anyone to know that is what really bothers her? 😂 I've heard all these talking points before...you aren't interacting with a novice here. I'm not interested in giving Lindsay any views. You enjoy though.
-
16 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
Her point wasn’t that a corporation trying to make their work more progressive is a bad thing. Her point was that Disney mostly only pays lip service to the idea, without doing any of the necessary leg work. In other words, Disney will try to defend themselves from criticism by trying to make their female characters seem more empowering and making fun of some of their old cliches, but they’re not willing to acknowledge the more uncomfortable aspects of their past films, such as their racism or their glorifications of absolute monarchies.
If she were your typical white woman feminist, she would probably be more likely to applaud Disney for their surface level attempts at being “progressive”.
Nope. As a black woman and a feminist, I can tell you that my interactions with white women feminists are exactly as I've described. Sure, some of them are as you say but there are many more who start to get uncomfortable when white women are no longer the center of attention.
Is acknowledging their more problematic past supposed to be more profound than making changes that reflect the world we live in today? And what does Lindsay want them to do, exactly? Send out a press release? Will she then be ok with said changes? As I said, this sounds like fake concern to mask what really bothers people like Lindsay. I've seen it enough to know.
-
40 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
I’m not a fan of the word “woke” myself, but her underlying argument is that Disney’s attempts at being seen as progressive are disingenuous and lazy, and that they refuse to acknowledge the more problematic aspects of their past films, such as the racism in the original Dumbo, in favor of on the nose girl power messages (Lindsay Ellis is a feminist, just so you know).
Thanks for the summary, now I'm really glad I didn't watch. Lindsay sounds like your typical white woman feminist, many of whom are disingenuous themselves. Disney is a business... of course they are attempting to cash in on the "woke"/ progressive movement. I don't think anyone really thinks they are doing this out of their goodness of their hearts. But to say that wanting to be seen as more progressive is lazy or disingenuous is, in itself, lazy and disingenuous. Lindsay sounds like those people who just don't want to come and say they hate racebending, for example. Lol
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
Lindsay Ellis definitely isn’t one of those anti-SJW types, if that’s what you’re wondering.
Ok. Cool. Still cringe whenever I see stuff like "Woke Disney."
-
31 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:
So, Lindsay Ellis did a video about Disney’s attempts to be “woke”, and she talks a bit about this film in particular, so I thought I’d share it for anyone who’s interested.
Sounds like it's going to give me a headache. I'll pass.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:
I don't think most people criticizing Joker even knows either of those movies exist. And people can't criticise a movie they haven't watched.
Uhh, that was not the point. It's about the fact that Joker isn't as unique as you seem to think it is. And yeah, I think we know enough about Joker for people to offer certain criticisms. If we only had thoughts or criticisms of movies after we've watched them, a lot of threads on this forum would be dead as hell.
-
1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:
But they are questioning this film like almost no other film. The other films that were criticised for being dangerous (where the controversy was nowhere as big either way). The closest was that Taxi Driver Reagan assassination. So why do people expect something to happen here?
Centring on the most famous homicidal maniac doesn't really matter when no one has tried to imitate him in real life (and no, the Aurora shooter didn't kill people because of the Joker). People are talking about something that has never happened so why are they worried this movie will? It doesn't even look edgy and exploitative like a Hamony Korine film (which have caused nothing in the real world to happen either).
It matters because the criticism isn't just about whether or not someone will imitate Joker. A lot of the criticism is simply about what this movie is trying to say, its narrative, whether or not it makes Joker sympathetic. In that sense, it's similar to the criticism several movies have gotten recently for trying to make white supremacists sympathetic. (Burden, The Best of Enemies, for example.) Joker happens to involve a famous comic book villian so it's getting a lot more attention.
-
17 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:
I am obtuse for showing you that you're argument is completely off base? Show me awards movies or serious dramas that have been labelled as dangerous and will have real world implications. One that will influence people to do something as crazy as kill others or cause an incel uprising. Any awards movie. For all the controversy and scrutiny films like Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book got last year, neither was labelled dangerous or were said to have real world implications. And both those movies were based on real stories unlike this one which is completely fictional.
No, he understands why the movie has been labelled as dangerous and problematic. He just thinks they are shit reasons and could be used on any other movie. How do people who haven't even seen this specific movie know that it is dangerous? There are so many films with mentally ill people as the lead or explore mental illness. Most of the talk isn't even about the mental illness aspect but the "depressed white guy becoming violent" aspect which, again, is in many other movies including serious dramas. I also would be surprised if this movie got same controversy if it wasn't specifically about the Joker (it probably isn't even edgy or exploitative enough for that to happen). All this controversy isn't because of the kind of film it is but because of the character.
And, yeah I agree that Wick isn't a good example. That's why I said I think something like A Clockwork Orange (which did get similar criticisms when it released though) is a much better example.
Well, obviously. It isn't just that the movie is a serious drama or tackles mental illness. It does so while centering one of the most famous homicidal maniacs in pop culture. More than that, we know from the trailers that Phillips' Joker is a loser type who is rejected by society. That in itself is enough reason for people to question this movie in ways they never would a movie like JW (or worse examples like BR or GB).
Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Shazam is a cute family movie. As a superhero movie, Aquaman blows it out of the water. 😉