[honk]

Nice link, did you even bother clicking on it? I will go ahead and fix it. Seems like no one else bothered to click on it anyway.

Quit oppressing me. This says a lot about our society.

One thing though, I am pretty sure Joker does kill Beetz, at least that is what I gathered when they showed him all bloody leaving her apartment after she told him to gtfo.

Well, there was a recent interview with the movie's cinematographer that touched on this subject, and we should probably just get this over with so we can talk about it normally:

spoiler warring

For instance, his relationship to Sophie is a fantasy to him. Some people have asked me, “Was she killed?” Todd makes it clear she wasn’t killed. Arthur is killing people who’ve wronged him in a certain way, and Sophie never wronged him.

"Todd makes it clear" my ass. It's ambiguously shot, like you pointed out (although I'm not sure if Arthur did look especially bloody directly afterward or if it was all just part of his generally disheveled appearance), we don't see the end of the confrontation between them, and we never see Sophie again in the movie. If the situation wasn't meant to be ambiguous, why does it play out like that?

Conspiracy theory time: They went ahead and shot the scene as Arthur killing Sophie, as per the original script, but months later, as rumblings of an incel controversy began to cast a shadow over the film's premiere, they panicked and cut out the murder altogether, only leaving the initial confrontation and the aftermath of Arthur walking down the hallway post-murder. It would have been too late at that point to get Phoenix to lose a ton of weight again so they could reshoot the scene and give it a different outcome. And something that might support that narrative is Phillips's very insistent disavowal of deleted scenes and extended cuts in general. (Some brief research online has shown me that he doesn't seem to have been so concerned about this for his previous movies.) Deleted scenes would of course include Arthur killing Sophie, and both Phillips and the movie would be raked over the coals for filming a scene like that to begin with.

Or maybe this just wasn't a very well-written movie and Phillips isn't a very good director.

[Roundy]

Or maybe a little ambiguity is ok, especially in a movie that's as much of a puzzler as this one was.

SPOILER ALERT (I'm not blacking them out,  you've been warned)

In Arthur Fleck we have the ultimate unreliable narrator, a man who is completely incapable of discerning reality from fantasy. The movie is intentionally disorienting because Arthur is constantly disoriented. I remember leaving The Usual Suspects having NO CLUE what had actually taken place. Somehow that movie managed to be regarded as a classic. Ambiguity is not a bad thing if handled well. Does Arthur even know for sure if he killed Sophie? I think that given the state of his mind at the time even that's debatable. In other words if you were confused, good. That means you were in the head of the protagonist.

And there was still enough to the plot that we can discern a definite story, we may just not be clear on the details (again, putting us in Arthur's head). The overall story was far clearer than in Usual Suspects. You must have really hated that one.

I'm perfectly fine with not knowing if Arthur killed Sophie, and I could give two shits what was initially intended. It was initially intended that humanity was destroyed in the musical version  of Little Shop of Horrors. It was initially intended that Dante be murdered at the end of Clerks. Do you disavow those movies because the filmmakers came to their senses and fixed their errors?

For the record, yes, I loved this movie. Obviously you didn't, but your stated reasons for why you didn't like it are questionable. Grasping. It's ok to just not like a movie.

Also I think counting on the cinematographer for insight into what the director was thinking is foolhardy.  When he says "Todd makes it clear" that sounds like an opinion to me, no more insightful than you saying that Todd doesn't make anything clear.

Ok, edit: was ruminating on this a bit, and what about the scene where Arthur kills the one guy but spares the midget's life? I believe he says he's not killing him because he never wronged him. Again not sure it means much (unreliable narrator etc) but it is coming out of the protagonist's mouth. I imagine that's the scene the cinematographer was thinking of when he made that statement.

[Roundy]

More spoilers ahead.



For the record I think that your opinion that the movie never says anything despite straining to try is off point too. It's a movie about a mentally disturbed man marginalized (at best) by his peers and neglected by society who becomes a notorious mass murderer. The scene where his social worker says the program's funding has been cut says it all. Society made the Joker. It couldn't be more relevant to the modern political climate.

[honk]

Good, someone to argue with.

In Arthur Fleck we have the ultimate unreliable narrator, a man who is completely incapable of discerning reality from fantasy. The movie is intentionally disorienting because Arthur is constantly disoriented. I remember leaving The Usual Suspects having NO CLUE what had actually taken place. Somehow that movie managed to be regarded as a classic. Ambiguity is not a bad thing if handled well. Does Arthur even know for sure if he killed Sophie? I think that given the state of his mind at the time even that's debatable. In other words if you were confused, good. That means you were in the head of the protagonist.

And there was still enough to the plot that we can discern a definite story, we may just not be clear on the details (again, putting us in Arthur's head). The overall story was far clearer than in Usual Suspects. You must have really hated that one.

I love The Usual Suspects, although I don't think I could bear to watch it again knowing that Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey are such gigantic creeps. I think you might have misunderstood me somewhat. I don't dislike the movie's general use of ambiguity; I just don't believe that this particular instance was an intentional use of ambiguity, instead being a weak, rushed conclusion to the Sophie subplot that felt like a half-baked placeholder for the more incelly resolution of Arthur killing Sophie. This seems to be backed up by the cinematographer claiming it was "clear" Arthur didn't hurt her. Speaking of him, I should certainly hope that the cinematographer is a reasonably authoritative source for what any given scene is meant to establish. I don't think it's fair to compare him to any random commentator on the Internet.

I'm perfectly fine with not knowing if Arthur killed Sophie, and I could give two shits what was initially intended. It was initially intended that humanity was destroyed in the musical version of Little Shop of Horrors. It was initially intended that Dante be murdered at the end of Clerks. Do you disavow those movies because the filmmakers came to their senses and fixed their errors?

There's a world of difference between disavowing movies based on real-world context and outright ignoring the parts that may have been informed by real-world context. Sometimes those details are worth some analysis and discussion. For example, you mentioned Little Shop of Horrors. Humanity was destroyed in the stage musical. You're thinking of the film adaptation, in which the negative response to the original ending from test audiences led to the filmmakers quickly substituting in an abrupt, half-assed happy ending that nobody involved with the movie was really satisfied with. To me, this is a lesson on the fickle nature of adaptations - something that works for a theatrical production of an offbeat black comedy won't necessarily work for a movie that's trying to be a mainstream crowd-pleaser. Don't you think that's interesting, maybe something to learn from?

And even if I were disavowing Joker based on a possible murderous conclusion to the Sophie subplot, it would be less based on the darkness of such a scene and more on the overt sexism of framing it as just another instance of our sympathetic anti-hero punishing someone for wronging him - which I guarantee is exactly how it would have played out on screen in the hands of Todd Phillips. But, like I said, I'm not doing that, and wouldn't even if my mostly-joking conspiracy theory of such a scene being filmed and then cut turned out to be true.

For the record, yes, I loved this movie. Obviously you didn't, but your stated reasons for why you didn't like it are questionable. Grasping. It's ok to just not like a movie.

There's always a reason why someone likes or dislikes a movie, and mine is mostly that it was boring and a thematic mess.

For the record I think that your opinion that the movie never says anything despite straining to try is off point too. It's a movie about a mentally disturbed man marginalized (at best) by his peers and neglected by society who becomes a notorious mass murderer. The scene where his social worker says the program's funding has been cut says it all. Society made the Joker. It couldn't be more relevant to the modern political climate.

If that were true, it's all the more reason why references to Bernie Goetz and the Occupy movement ring hollow. They have nothing to do with Arthur and his situation. Maybe a little bit more exploration of precisely what it was that created the Joker and less gesturing at irrelevant political iconography might have helped made the themes feel more poignant. That being said, though, I'm not sure it was society that made the Joker. Most of what provokes Arthur into violence is weirdly-specific bullying that comes not from society, but from individuals who have no real reason to have it out for him. An asshole coworker scheming to get him fired, three drunken idiots randomly picking a fight with him, and a television personality making fun of his comedy routine are not what I would think of as we-live-in-a-society material. It's all much too specific to Arthur.

[juner]

I love The Usual Suspects, although I don't think I could bear to watch it again knowing that Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey are such gigantic creeps.

Imagine unironically not being able to separate the art from the artist.

[honk]

The wound is fresh right now. In time I'll be able to look back on their careers more objectively.

<Saddam> Snupes: Commissioner Gordon being black is IMPORTANT and BAD
<Saddam> They can't do this
<Saddam> Political correctness run amok
<Snupes> Who's playing him?
<Saddam> Jeffrey Wright
<Snupes> Oh nice
<Snupes> I'm down with that
<Saddam> That means there'll probably be a black Batgirl too
<Saddam> The agenda
<Saddam> The panda-ing
<Snupes> You could literally throw his Westworld look into the new Batman and I'd buy him
<Saddam> Jokes aside, he is a terrific actor
<Snupes> There better not be a Batgirl
<Saddam> I doubt there will for this movie
<Snupes> I don't want any movie-verse building to start, please, lol
<Saddam> Oh, and Andy Serkis will be Alfred
<Snupes> That's
<Snupes> An unconventional choice
<Saddam> I didn't even know he was British
<Snupes> Oh he's very British
<Snupes> I guess I could buy it, looking at him now
<Snupes> I think of weaselly, Lord of the Rings era Serkis when I think of him
<Snupes> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Andy_Serkis_2003.jpg
<Snupes> I see that and think "ew no" for Alfred
<Saddam> Uh, do you want me to not tell you who else will be in the movie?
<Saddam> Like the Marvelshit or whatever?
<Snupes> But he's aged well
<Saddam> I don't want to say too much and get you mad
<Snupes> tbh I'm so jaded by DC movies that I'm not worried about casting spoilers
<Snupes> I just don't wanna know the plot stuff
<Snupes> I know Batman's a vampire now, which I'm actually okay with
<Saddam> Good, so it's John Turturro as Carmine Falcone, Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman, and Paul Dano as the Riddler
<Snupes> Paul Dano is kind of an odd one but I can probably see it
<Saddam> And Colin Farrell as the Penguin
<Snupes> I don't know who Zoe Kravitz is
<Saddam> That's not a joke btw
<Saddam> She's Lenny Kravitz's daughter, but I haven't seen any of her movies
<Snupes> Uhhhh what
<Saddam> But she is also black, the agenda, the pandering
<Snupes> Okay that Colin Farrell one is the first one that has me thinking that's awful
<Saddam> My concern is they've got too many
<Saddam> Too many villains, sorry
<Saddam> Although it does seem to at least confirm that this won't be adapting Year One
<Snupes> Why doesn't anyone want to stick to Penguin being short and fat
<Snupes> Or even just fat?
<Saddam> Reeves already denied it, but I wasn't sure if I believed it
<Snupes> They have too many Colin Farrells
<Snupes> Actually one Colin Farrell is too many, so
<Saddam> Hollywood can't get enough of Frank Miller in Batman movies
<Saddam> He's like the DC version of Mark Millar, only at least that guy has a large body of work
<Snupes> And yeah that's a lot of villains, but I think it's very doable without a huge big baddie
<Saddam> Whereas with Miller, it's the same two fucking comics over and over
<Snupes> And both of them kind of suck
<Snupes> One less "kind of"
<Saddam> Also many adaptations make the Penguin British as well, which I don't get it
<Saddam> which I don't get*
<Snupes> His name
<Snupes> It's hard to picture that name with an American accent
<Saddam> I guess, but it's also hard to picture that name belonging to someone who isn't at least trying to act sophisticated and dignified
<Snupes> Very true
<Saddam> And some adaptations also give him a coarse London accent and rough manner of speech as well as making him British
<Saddam> My own thought is that's a mistake
<Snupes> I just think of it as a very pulpy "evil dirty scheming brit"
<Saddam> The most interesting part of the Penguin is the idea of him being a foil to Bruce Wayne
<Saddam> Someone who hides his inner life behind wealth, societal connections, and charm

I actually do find Year One and TDKR to be worthwhile (if flawed) Batman tales, but they're relentlessly overpraised by a very vocal section of the fanbase, which I believe contributes to their overrepresentation in film just as much as their strong sales do. In related news:

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/dc-comics-superman-michael-b-jordan-green-lantern-aquaman-birds-of-prey-1203415757/

Some of this is interesting, but a lot of it is concerning. Michael B. Jordan probably wouldn't be a good Superman, and especially not if WB were to simply let him play himself and redefine the character that way, like they've done with most of their capeshitters in the DCEU. I'm also worried that having an R rating may become a gimmick if used gratuitously. Why in the world do Birds of Prey and James Gunn's Suicide Squad movie need R ratings? Green Lantern Corps is mentioned, and I can only hope that Geoff Johns writing it means that David Goyer is off the project. He is part of the problem, and WB needs to stop giving him work. There are so many up-and-coming screenwriters who would love to be a part of all this. The execs should listen to their pitches, take some time to meet with them, and stop working with the same tired old fogeys who have so many failures to their name. If you or I or anyone else floundered this much at a job, we would have been fired a long time ago. Why is Hollywood different?

Oh yeah, this is Birds of Prey. It might be great and it might be shit. I'm tired of trying to guess a movie's quality based on trailers:



This is my least favorite part of the article:

Warners and DC also still have faith in Ezra Miller’s smart-ass interpretation of the Flash

God fucking damn it, how did Ezra Miller somehow emerge from Justice League without being excoriated as harshly as Jared Leto was for Suicide Squad? Who actually liked that irritating millennial stereotype with his singsong line delivery and obnoxious mugging and atrocious jokes? Like, it's not just that the character was bad on paper (although it was) - Miller took a bad character with bad lines and actively made it worse with his awful, awful performance. I know he's done some good work in the past, so it's possible he could right the ship in future movies by toning down the "quirkiness" and playing Barry as more of a human being, but that will never happen if WB look at what turned out to be a major flaw with Justice League and inexplicably see it as a strength. This is the downside of what I mentioned before in letting your leads basically play themselves in terms of personality. When it works well, you get someone like Gal Gadot, who embodies her role so effortlessly as to instantly become iconic, but when it backfires, you get someone like Miller, who by all accounts seems to be a very annoying person with a very annoying manner of speech.

[honk]

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birds_of_prey_2020

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn

It looks like DC is continuing their trend of making movies that aren't outright disasters. I know we've beaten this subject to death, but I love how most of their problems went away once they stopped working with Snyder. Speaking of him, he's still teasing the magnum opus that would have been his version of Justice League:

https://www.cnet.com/news/zack-snyder-proves-the-snyder-cut-is-real-with-some-images-justice-league/

Yes, Snyder has once again confirmed that he...shot a lot of footage that didn't end up in the released movie. That does not make the process of editing and producing all this footage into a completed "cut" any less lengthy, expensive, or (most critically of all) bad for the marketing of the current DC movies. The people have spoken. Snyder made a movie with Batman and Superman, it underperformed commercially, and due to negative word of mouth, the next movie he made with them flopped. Then they let someone else make a movie with fucking Aquaman and it grossed over a billion dollars. Why would they spent a lot of time and money on re-associating these properties with a director who's been so bad for business with them?

[juner]

> not a disaster

lmao

nice post release movie name change

[honk]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/11/21132868/harley-quinn-birds-of-prey-name-change-seo-warner-bros-opening-weekend-trailers

You weren't kidding. Well, I suppose it's a different kind of disaster now. It's interesting to speculate on went wrong. The usual suspects have been quick to sound their dumb get-woke-go-broke meme, which I certainly don't think is the case. That being said, it's entirely possible that Margot Robbie's portrayal of Harley was more popular for how heavily sexualized she was in SS than for being a particularly interesting or likable character. SS was shit, after all. My guess as to the real culprit behind the movie's underperformance, moreso than the stupid title, is the R rating. Why did a movie like this need an R rating? Why push the family audience away?

[Rama Set]

Even PG-13 so that teens can go see it with their friends.

[honk]

Important Batman news! We have our first glimpse of Battinson's suit!

https://vimeo.com/391277390

I hate to be negative, but I'm not sure if I really like this. I'm tired of seeing "armored" Batsuits in live action. It feels like an incredibly unnecessary concession to realism, as if audiences can't suspend their disbelief and accept the premise of Batman unless he's "realistically" armored for urban warfare. Can't we just suppose that the Batsuit provides decent protection while also being flexible, and that Batman is good enough at what he does to avoid having to be hospitalized every night? Maybe this film will buck the trend, but the strange need to layer Batman up so heavily for movies has always led to stiff and slow action scenes. And I don't like that cowl at all. It looks more like a helmet than a cowl, and it's weirdly reminiscent of Daredevil. But this is just a brief glimpse. Hopefully I'll like it better when we see some more of it.

[juner]

why is there another batman movie? does it really need to be rebooted so soon?

[beardo]

And what the hell is that collar

[Crudblud]

why is there another batman movie? does it really need to be rebooted so soon?

I think they want to make people forget about the Snyder Batman stuff as soon as possible. They're probably going to end up with a sort of Batman Forever situation where they're so desperate to do that that they forget how to actually make a movie.

[honk]

I'm a little more hopeful because of the lengthy negotiations between Reeves and WB, so we know that this won't be a rushed director-for-hire job. And Reeves has been doing pretty well for himself lately.

[Crudblud]

I'm a little more hopeful because of the lengthy negotiations between Reeves and WB, so we know that this won't be a rushed director-for-hire job. And Reeves has been doing pretty well for himself lately.

Reeves strikes me as a middle-of-the-road sort of efficient but mediocre filmmaker, but maybe that's what DC needs after Snyder's abyssal onanism. Or maybe I'm wrong and he's spent all this time negotiating to make sure that he really gets to make this movie his own, as opposed to the by the numbers blockbuster stuff he normally does. I will say the casting seems quite good, I'm especially intrigued by the idea of Paul Dano playing a villain.

[honk]

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/the-batman-leaked-images-video-1203510607/



Oh no.



Oh no, no, no.

This isn't good, guys. I want to be optimistic about this movie, but this Batsuit blows chimp. It looks like ass. I don't like that weird collar, I don't like the blacked-out lenses, I don't like that there's no cape, I don't like whatever the fuck is supposed to be on his forearms, and I don't like in general how piecemeal and slapped-together it all looks. We can probably overlook the bizarre coloration in the second picture, because proper lighting is critical to making any costume look good (Whedon trying to apply his own aesthetic to a movie that clearly had designed all its props, costumes, and settings for use in Snyder's aesthetic is a major part of why JL looked as bad as it did), but all the same...this just isn't a good look.

[Lord Dave]

Looks alot like something mixed between Punisher and Daredevil.

By which I mean crap.

[honk]

I guess the motorcycle looks all right. I'm sure the Batmobile will pop up at some point; they wouldn't make a Batman movie without it. On that very important subject, I really hope it's a proper car this time. I'm tired of the recent trend in adaptations of turning the Batmobile into a tumbler/tank/APC that emphasizes brute force and just smashes through everything. It reeks of a desperate urge to hyper-masculinize what's inherently a very silly concept. Batman operates in a city, and he should need a car to drive around in. A cool car with gadgets and all, but still, first and foremost a car, not simply another weapon Batman uses to take out enemies. It feels like such a lame attempt at chest-beating machismo every time an adaptation rolls out the new city-destroying behemoth that they call the Batmobile. Because Batman simply driving around in a bat-themed car is just too silly for this super fucking serious story of a man who fights crime dressed as a bat. The Lego Batman Movie hilariously parodied this trend by giving us the most over-the-top Batmobile imaginable, and that should really have been the last word on the subject:

[Rama Set]

It reeks of a desperate urge to hyper-masculinize

Let that sink in.