Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[WittyUsername]

8 minutes ago, TMP said:

Entertainment Weekly said Joker is too tWiStEd to even give a grade to, that says it all really.

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. 

[Ororo Munroe]

15 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

You have no clue if it's sympathy or empathy. And regardless of either, it's not going to do more harm than A Clockwork Orange or Taxi Driver (both movies where audiences are made to empathise with the main characters) did. There is really no conversation to be had here.

 

Also how would you feel if Disney decided to make Mulan a movie the fetisizhes the values held by the CCP (which they already are with the marketing) and also paid by the CCP to not say anything bad about them? It's the same thing happening here but with America.

 

@LaughingEvans Yeah, Green Lantern and Man of Steel did the same thing. I'm 99% sure the Transformers movies have had military involvement too.

How would I have no clue when everything we know about his backstory suggests exactly that? I'm not even arguing that it will do any harm at all. Point is, don't start with the distraction tactics or try to turn this into an Marvel vs. DC debate. (Glorification of the military is not brand exclusive.)

 

You say there is no conversation to be had but you're the one who posted the tweets, lol. I'm saying if we're going to have this conversation, then there is no reason Joker should be ignored or excluded. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ororo Munroe

[JB33]

36 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

I'm not going to defend any glorification of the military but saying the conversation needs to start with the MCU is an absolute joke. You want to talk about problematic elements in MCU movies, fine. But don't use it as a distraction from Joker. The need to not only center a white male villain but to make him sympathetic should remain at the forefront of the conversation.  

Who the fuck cares if he's white or Male?

[TMP]

15 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

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. 

To warn people from its danger

[JB33]

So the critics are fine grading a movie like Saw,  which glorifies torture and extreme violence, but Joker crosses the line.

Edited September 11, 2019 by JB33

[Ororo Munroe]

2 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Who the fuck cares if he's white or Male?

You do, obviously, since you're triggered any time anyone says anything "negative" about white males. 

[JB33]

Just now, Ororo Munroe said:

You do, obviously, since you're triggered any time anyone says anything "negative" about white males. 

Well yeah, because the identity politics is annoying as hell. 

[lorddemaxus]

15 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

How would I have no clue when everything we know about his backstory suggests exactly that? 

You do realise, the movie isn't using his backstory in the comics right (where he literally just falls into a vat of chemicals)? I honestly don't think the story tries to make us sympathise with Joker. It's really just empathy (and empathy is needed for the story to work).

 

Quote

Glorification of the military is not brand exclusive.

Sure it isn't. But people talk about Man of Steel or Green Lantern the same way they talk about Iron Man, Captain Marvel, or Winter Soldier? Not really. Neither of those two movies are as well regarded as those other three.

 

Quote

You say there is no conversation to be had but you're the one who posted the tweets, lol. I'm saying if we're going to have this conversation, then there is no reason Joker should be ignored or excluded. 

My point is that the conversation about military influencing what's now considered the "behemoth of modern pop culture" is way more important than some movie that just has a guy dressed up as a clown killing people. Seriously, I consider the entire marketing campaign of Captain Marvel to be more dangerous than any of Joker (haven't seen the movie but read the script which is largely the same).

Edited September 11, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Ororo Munroe]

2 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Well yeah, because the identity politics is annoying as hell. 

The irony... lol

2 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

You do realise, the movie isn't using his backstory in the comics right (where he literally just falls into a vat of chemicals)?

 

Sure it isn't. But people talk about Man of Steel or Green Lantern the same way they talk about Iron Man, Captain Marvel, or Winter Soldier? Not really. Neither of those two movies are as well regarded as those other three.

 

My point is that the conversation about military influencing what's now considered the "behemoth of pop culture" is way more important than some movie that just has a guy dressed up as a clown killing people. Seriously, I consider the entire marketing campaign of Captain Marvel to be more dangerous than any of Joker (haven't seen the movie but read the script which is largely the same).

Uh, I was referring to Joker's backstory in the movie. The trailers pretty much tell us that Arthur was neglected, abused by society. Hell, at least one of the rave reviews says the movie is compelling because Joker is sympathetic, lol. 

 

Oh so you want to be able to determine what's more relevant, important or dangerous based on popularity? Joker is now just some movie that has a guy dressed up as a clown killing people. Lmao! We should ignore the rave reviews it's gotten, the fact that it may be a big hit at the box office, may win more awards?? Hilarious! 

[lorddemaxus]

7 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

The irony... lol

Uh, I was referring to Joker's backstory in the movie. The trailers pretty much tell us that Arthur was neglected, abused by society. Hell, at least one of the rave reviews says the movie is compelling because Joker is sympathetic, lol. 

Just because he's neglected by society doesn't make him sympathetic. There's a reason why I mentioned A Clockwork Orange.

 

Quote

Oh so you want to be able to determine what's more relevant, important or dangerous based on popularity? Joker is now just some movie that has a guy dressed up as a clown killing people. Lmao! We should ignore the rave reviews it's gotten, the fact that it may be a big hit at the box office, may win more awards?? Hilarious! 

Are you really going to argue that Man of Steel and Green Lantern are just as relevant and important as the MCU?

 

And Joker is dangerous how? 

Edited September 11, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[The Futurist]

Todd Phillips is changing movie making forever but the basics at EW couldn't handle it.

Typical.

[Ororo Munroe]

13 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Just because he's neglected by society doesn't make him sympathetic. There's a reason why I mentioned A Clockwork Orange.

 

Are you really going to argue that Man of Steel and Green Lantern are just as relevant and important as the MCU?

 

And Joker is dangerous how? 

Right, that angle is not meant to elicit any sympathy. That some critics have said that's exactly what they got from it means nothing. 

 

Did I say Joker was dangerous? I'm trying to make sense of your logic. And yeah, the notion that we shouldn't care or discuss an equally problematic element in some movies because they aren't as popular as others is weak as hell. Try harder. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ororo Munroe

[lorddemaxus]

23 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

Right, that angle is not meant to elicit any sympathy. That some critics have said that's exactly what they got from it means nothing. 

Nope, just like it didn't with A Clockwork Orange. What one critic said doesn't really mean shit.

 

Quote

And yeah, the notion that we shouldn't care or discuss an equally problematic element in some movies because they aren't as popular as others is weak as hell.

If the movies aren't well regarded like Man of Steel or Green Lantern, people wouldn't really even care to notice about the pro-military aspects of either movie. I'm not saying that those movies shouldn't be scrutunized while only Marvel movies should be. What I'm saying is that scrutnizing the Marvel movies for those problematic elements is way more important because they are much more widely consumed and much more well regarded. It makes it easier for the military to spread their influence with a Marvel movie or even a Transformers movie (which already face a much larger level of scrutiny though) than a major flop like Green Lantern.

 

And yes, if a product reaches a wider audience then that that does make the problematic elements more problematic just because more people are able to see that point of view.

 

Also what logic are you trying to see? Why I'm criticising Marvel? My point isn't even to turn it into a brand war (although I posted this here because I know people like you would see it that way). If DC movies were as well regarded or loved as Marvel movies are, I would say the same thing about them too. It's just that they aren't.

Edited September 11, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Nero]

6 hours ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Bryan Singer has been molesting young boys for years.

 

Michael Jackson has also had molestation allegations 

Yeah but I didn't know about Singer until recently tbh. About Micheal yeah I have heard the allegations but really don't know what to make of them, some people deny it vehemently some say he did it.

[Nero]

40 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Nope, just like it didn't with A Clockwork Orange. What one critic said doesn't really mean shit.

 

If the movies aren't well regarded like Man of Steel or Green Lantern, people wouldn't really even care to notice about the pro-military aspects of either movie. I'm not saying that those movies shouldn't be scrutunized while only Marvel movies should be. What I'm saying is that scrutnizing the Marvel movies for those problematic elements is way more important because they are much more widely consumed and much more well regarded. It makes it easier for the military to spread their influence with a Marvel movie or even a Transformers movie (which already face a much larger level of scrutiny though) than a major flop like Green Lantern.

 

And yes, if a product reaches a wider audience then that that does make the problematic elements more problematic just because more people are able to see that point of view.

 

Also what logic are you trying to see? Why I'm criticising Marvel? My point isn't even to turn it into a brand war (although I posted this here because I know people like you would see it that way). If DC movies were as well regarded or loved as Marvel movies are, I would say the same thing about them too. It's just that they aren't.

They(DC movies exception are there but) aren't well regarded because they are not good enough that even general audience care about them. Also I don't get this military thing if it's only exclusive to US but none of that matters to GA and others. This is really weird. I can understand why people have problem with Joker cause in US gun laws are not strong and people generally blame the murderer as mental disability like every fucking single time thats why glorifying Joker or having something related to with it and the recent mass shootings is what have critics concerned. This is a serious problem in US.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Nero

[Ororo Munroe]

50 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Nope, just like it didn't with A Clockwork Orange. What one critic said doesn't really mean shit.

 

If the movies aren't well regarded like Man of Steel or Green Lantern, people wouldn't really even care to notice about the pro-military aspects of either movie. I'm not saying that those movies shouldn't be scrutunized while only Marvel movies should be. What I'm saying is that scrutnizing the Marvel movies for those problematic elements is way more important because they are much more widely consumed and much more well regarded. It makes it easier for the military to spread their influence with a Marvel movie or even a Transformers movie (which already face a much larger level of scrutiny though) than a major flop like Green Lantern.

 

And yes, if a product reaches a wider audience then that that does make the problematic elements more problematic just because more people are able to see that point of view.

 

Also what logic are you trying to see? Why I'm criticising Marvel? My point isn't even to turn it into a brand war (although I posted this here because I know people like you would see it that way). If DC movies were as well regarded or loved as Marvel movies are, I would say the same thing about them too. It's just that they aren't.

Lol It's not just about one critic. I know what I see with my own eyes, anyhow. 

 

You can spin the rest however you like, it's still a ridiculous argument. Man of Steel made over 650M, more than TFA and TWS,  which in itself proves how weak your argument is. But even if that weren't the case, it's still silly and short-sighted to try position this an MCU or Disney issue, if for no other reason than it gives the impression that other big studios or big budget movies aren't perpetuating the very same problematic elements with some success. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Ororo Munroe

[lorddemaxus]

20 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

it's still a ridiculous argument. Man of Steel made over 650M, more than TFA and TWS,  which in itself proves how weak your argument is. But even if that weren't the case, it's still silly and short-sighted to try position this an MCU or Disney issue, if for no other reason than it gives the impression that other big studios or big budget movies aren't perpetuating the very same problematic elements with some success. 

And Man of Steel is one of the most divisive superhero movies right now while TFA and TWS are extremely well regarded, part of the biggest franchise of the century (maybe even the biggest ever), and aren't scrutnised to the level Man of Steel is. Yes many, other studios and movies do get funding from the government and fetishize the military but none of them are as successful as the MCU.

Edited September 11, 2019 by lorddemaxus

[Ororo Munroe]

1 minute ago, lorddemaxus said:

And Man of Steel is one of the most divisive superhero movies right now while TFA and TWS are extremely well regarded and aren't scrutnised to the level Man of Steel is. Yes many, other studios and movies do get funding from the government and fetishize the military but none of them are as successful as the MCU.

Lol You just said a wider audience makes problematic elements more problematic. But not MoS because it's divisive..as if that makes its problematic elements less problematic...as if the movie were divisive because of its problematic elements. It's amazing that you don't see how silly this all sounds. 

[langer]

To celebrate this thread reaching 1000 pages, I'd like to express my opinion on the following franchises:

 

Star Wars :  Luke was properly portrayed in The Last Jedi

MCU : Tony was not the hero of Endgame, - he wouldn't have snapped if he had known it would kill him - Also Infinity Wars was part 1 and Endgame was part 2

DCEU : Snyder deserves credit for the Wonder Woman script

X-Men : X-Men The Last Stand was pretty good

Avatar : This is not a franchise.  At least not yet...  and maybe never.  I still think this will get delayed to 202X...

Harry Potter : Old Harry scene at the end of DH2 was cringe worthy

LOTR : Visual effects in the Hobbit series were better than in the LOTR

Transformers : Shia Leboeuf was a pretty good actor

 

That's all. 

[lorddemaxus]

23 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

Lol You just said a wider audience makes problematic elements more problematic. But not MoS because it's divisive..as if that makes its problematic elements less problematic...as if the movie were divisive because of its problematic elements. It's amazing that you don't see how silly this all sounds. 

You clearly didn't read all of what I said. And yes, it's hard spread your influence through shitty products, ie. MoS and Green Lantern.