No.1035228[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1590172257145.png (322.64 KB, 620x400, 31:20, We_live_in_a_society_botto….png) ImgOps Google
Oh my God. I've been trying to get over how terrible and pretentious the movie Joker was for three days. But one thing about the movie has been bugging me more than anything else.
Discussion in the thread since it involves... spoilers, maybe? Probably.
File: 1590174431722.jpg (179.8 KB, 449x593, 449:593, anger.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
So, in addition to being a movie convinced it's trying to say something when it's really not, the stuff it DOES end up saying is kind of problematic. So the movie the Arthur (who later becomes the Joker) kills some guys who were harassing him on the subway. But because they were Wall Street guys employed by Thomas Wayne, the public took these killings as protests against income inequality. Even though the Joker makes it clear later that wasn't his intention and he was actually protesting some vague "we live in a society" nonsense. But the part of the movie that really bugs me is that when the Joker unintentionally sparks these income inequality protests, Thomas and Martha Wayne are shot, setting up the common Batman origin story. This... fundamentally changes Batman and what he's about. Earlier in the movie, we see Thomas Wayne come on TV and denounce the income inequality protesters. Saying that poor people are just lazy and that's why they are poor. A common sentiment among the rich in the real world. But this has never been how Thomas Wayne has been characterized in any version of Batman I have seen, and I've seen a few. I thought the movie was setting up that this version of the Thomas was callous and greedy, but this never pays off. Instead, Thomas is portrayed as being right the protesters are framed as explicitly villainous because of how this is used in Batman's origin. The movie was made by rich people, but this is so clearly tone-deaf about what those who protest income inequality are actually saying or wanting that it borderline comical.
But the worst part is what this does to Batman himself.Changing this aspect of how Batman became Batman fundamentally changes what kind of hero Batman is and what he becomes. Instead of random crime claiming the lives of his parents, it was people protesting his family having disproportionate wealth and who his father openly denounced as bad and villainous. If this Bruce Wayne does indeed become a Batman, he will be motivated not by a desire to help or protect the needy, but by seeing them as his father did and was proven right on that night. As at best a burden or at worst a threat. A Batman motivated by greed and selfishness. A fundamentally different character. This is such an insult that I have no words to describe it. The rest of the movie was a pretentious piece of shit, that tried so hard to say something without saying anything, and I never once, not for a second sympathized with Arthur or his "we live in a society" bullshit he used to justify his own selfish and evil actions. Or the fact that this film is going to probably inspire the next Aurora Shooting because of the way it appeals to angry white guys who are mad they don't have a girlfriend and a Mercedes because they feel the world owes them that. But I'd forget about all of that if it wasn't for the fact that they used the protesting of income inequality as the motivations for the killing of Batman's parents and framed those who do as villainous and wrong as a result. It changes a character that I love for the worst using a movement I care about while fundamentally NOT understanding either. That is simply disgusting.
File: 1590175163199.jpg (28.74 KB, 400x300, 4:3, 132614033007.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I didn't watch it. Looked pretty cringe.
To each their own, I suppose. I certainly understood his plight here.
Call it empathy, I guess.
It's not a lack of empathy to understand that the Joker is just using "society is bad and has wronged me" as a justification for his heinous acts. That's not even a unique motivation among Batman villains. It's the same justification Tyler from Fight Club used and he is framed as villainous. It's just done incredibly poorly here. Not to mention, the movie sets up that Arthur is an unreliable narrator and we have no idea how much of what happened is real or him imagining things. >>1035242
I think it is possible to empathzie with that particular justification. Especially when we see, at least from Arthur's perspective, society has
wronged him. Rather badly, too.
I'm not convinced it's done poorly. At best, that's a subjective interpretation.>Not to mention, the movie sets up that Arthur is an unreliable narrator and we have no idea how much of what happened is real or him imagining things.
True, but that's I would say largely unimportant to Arthur's
story. Just like your complaints about Batman, for instance.
This movie is not the original Batman. It is not how the last several movies have told the story. It's a retelling of the series, importantly with the joker
as the protagonist, not Batman.>>1035242
I thought it was good. It takes a while to get going, but when it does, it's pretty wild.
Avoid spoilers, if you are going to see it, though. Most the plotpoints are obvious enough, but, it's still a lot better with a fresh view.
But the Joker is a bad guy. We aren't supposed to sympathize with him. And I don't. The movie failed to get me to. Yeah, I saw his story, but it does not make me want to justify his actions.
That has always been at the core of the Joker's worldview. That the world is chaotic and unfair so the only way to live is without rules. Batman fundamentally disagrees, not necessarily with the initial view, but with the conclusion.
This places the Joker clearly as villainous. Someone who uses the chaotic and unfair nature of the world to justify his own evil actions. This makes him bad
. So how does this movie expect to that that idea the Joker uses the chaotic and unfair nature of the world to justify his own evil actions
which has been framed as monstrous for decades and suddenly say "but now it's a good thing because his mom was mentally ill".
>>1035254>But the Joker is a bad guy. We aren't supposed to sympathize with him
Why? I don't think morality is so simple as to say we should never sympathize with bad people.
If anything, I think understanding why
people do bad things, empathizing with those people, is how we not only prevent them from coming to existence, but bring them back to the light.> So how does this movie expect to that that idea the Joker uses the chaotic and unfair nature of the world to justify his own evil actions which has been framed as monstrous for decades and suddenly say "but now it's a good thing because his mom was mentally ill".
it expects you to sympathize
is the events that lead him to get that world view.
Not because "mommy bad brain", nor does the movie expect you to agree with the Joker.Sympathize
doesn't mean agree
As I understand it, the way Joker rationalizes things is simply that, if the world's going to treat him horribly, drag him down, and generally be an unfair and terrible place, why shouldn't he respond in kind.
Not a particularly irrational, or even unjust mindset. I certainly don't agree with it, but I can understand how he got there and why he thinks that way, having seen a story of his perspective. I can empathize with him.
Yeah but Batman looked at the same world, saw the same thing, and said "No, I won't sink to that level. I'll make the world better." That is a far more admirable and understandable mindset to have. The Joker is consistently been show to be wrong
to come to the conclusion he does. So, I don't really see why I should sympathize with someone who could have taken the completely different route towards being a better person and instead chooses to be a villain. Becoming a villain was not inevitable or unavoidable for him. He chooses it. Because it was easier than dealing with his own bullshit. Which, you know. Is bad. He's a bad guy.
>>1035266>That is a far more admirable and understandable mindset to have
Sure, it's admirable
But you don't have to be admirable to be understandable. You certainly don't have to be, to be sympethizable. Most people aren't "admirable", yet I think we should be able to empathize with them nonetheless.>So, I don't really see why I should sympathize with someone who could have taken the completely different route towards being a better person and instead chooses to be a villain.
It's like I said earlier.
Understanding why people do bad things, empathizing with those people, is how we not only prevent them from coming to existence, but bring them back to the light.
This is why empathy is considered a 'good' trait.
It has never had anything to do with if what you're doing is 'right'.
Personally, at least as far as protagonists are concerned, I think it's best to take it at face value.
Yes, it might not be what happened. But, it's what Arthur think happened. Which, for his perspective, is enough in so far as a story is concerned.
Possible. But even if we take that to be true, the only thing we see in the movie is what the movie shows us. Even if it was all imagined by the Joker, the movie itself is still showing this.
I will agree that much of the film was "a piss poor attempt and filmaker wankery and petentions grasping to imitate much better filmmakers" My sister put it perfectly. "This is just a shitty version of Taxi Driver with Batman stuff stapled onto it!"
I feel like understanding doesn't require agreement, and is a necessary aspect of a society that actually addresses problems and grievances instead of shunting dissidents and letting them fester. > Understanding without agreeing, sympathizing without justifying. This movie's attempt at that was just poor, in my opinion.
I do not think this movie did either of those things. It just told the story, with Arthur as the protagonist.
I would say it gave us reason
to sympathize with him.
Whether or not you were able to is your issue.
I certainly have no trouble at all sympathizing with evil people.
>>1035297>But even if we take that to be true, the only thing we see in the movie is what the movie shows us. Even if it was all imagined by the Joker, the movie itself is still showing this.
Right, the plot twist recontexulizes the film as a character study thus telling signaling to the audience that "this isn't actually about anything but exploring a character".
Which of course the movie failed to earn. And like you're sister implied, a lot of movies have done this much
better before. A pathetic attempt by a director who seems best at frat boy comedies making movies he doesn't really know how to make effectively.
I think that it's a sign of courage to understand why
someone is evil or not.
Understanding doesn't imply approval, it just means having an accurate
assessment of the threat others, and how to have influence over them to keep yourself (and others) safe from evil people.
File: 1590188246446.png (21.25 KB, 384x401, 384:401, Mistakes were made, regret….png) ImgOps Google
I could certainly see it called pretentious. I hadn't thought of what this origin might do to Batman's character, either, that's a fair point. And while I don't think the movie was explicitly saying it's okay to murder people you think are bad, I could definitely see this inspiring a few people to live out their violent revenge fantasies.
But overall I did enjoy the movie. Like you mentioned, it's kind of a bad Fight Club, but I also really liked Fight Club, so being a bit worse leaves it as pretty okay, at least.
File: 1590189120924.jpg (47.16 KB, 555x563, 555:563, 1589416103391.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
If you think the point of the Joker as a character is that we are supposed to see him as "the bad character" then that is a very gross oversimplification. It's not like Batman as a character is inherently "good," as you could argue he does nothing but use his wealth and privilege as a way to take out his parental abandonment issues on people who are no more mentally well than he is.
That said, the movie was pretty hamfisted in general and did not really say much of anything at all.
Fight Club made it clear that Tyler was evil and wrong. This movie fails in that. >>1035339
I'd say Batman is atleast a little more mentally well than the Joker based on the fact he is not randomly killing people. What you just described isn't how Batman operates. He stops them from committing crimes and then turns them into the authorities. He also uses his money as Bruce Wayne for charity and gets reformed goons jobs in his warehouses.
Right, but there's a danger in symanpthizing with evil people too quickly or uncritically. It means you might be swayed to their way of thinking.
In either case, I just think if we were supposed to find this version of the Joker's motivations sympathetic, then the movie failed. Check it out.
Motivation: Save his dying wife.
Methods: Steal and kill to acheive this goal.
His motivation here is sympathetic, but his methods are bad. How about another
Killmonger (from the Black Panther film)
Motivation: Hundreds of years of oppression of black people
Methods: Use the weaponry of Wakanda for world domination.
See, sympathetic motivation, bad method. Now look at this version of the Joker.
Motivation: People are mean to him.
Methods: Become a psychopathic serial killer.
They don't really gel together or make him sympathetic.
I think that is only the case if you do not know your own morals, and why you hold them.
I have never felt compelled to any evil person's arguments, despite my understanding and sympathize in with them.
All I have ever had with that is the desire to combat the circumstance that's it them on that route.
I can, for instance, see why people who are starving want to steal. I can also say that stealing is still wrong. I can say that we should look into measures to make it so that nobody starves.
Funny you mention killmonger, as he is far less sympathetic to me then the joker is.
in the movie he only is shown to kill people who have directly wronged him. That particular line is certainly looser than I would have, but, I find it much easier to understand than a hatred towards people but are merely the race of people who have wronged ancestors of his. Or, really, just ancestors calls that particular race, since of course wakanda was never colonized.
Killmonger comes across as a bigot, whereas at least the joker went after people who had personally hurt him
Killmonger grew up poor in America. It's not just his ancestors (his mother was American, so it is his ancestors). He felt the effects of systemic racism first-hand. Maybe this was not as clear to people who don't live with it in their lives, but it was certainly clear to me and a lot of audiences.
Whereas the Joker's motivations of wanting to kill people because people were mean to him just sounds like a psychopath just trying to justify his actions.
Killmonger wanting to kill and rule people with an evident iron fist and rather obvious racial bias because he grew up in a rough neighborhood seems a fair way weaker to me then the life we directly see the joker go through.
The only really questionable killing is the one that the very end. Everybody else had a direct impact on him. This certainly seems to me to be much more understandable then what killmonger does.
But, I digress, it's still ultimately subjective, and if you can empathize with killmonger, I don't see why you have such an issue with people emphasizing with the joker.
To say he was motivated by "growing up in a rough neighborhood" is incredibly reductive. It was about more than just his personal experiences. I don't know if you're doing that on purpose of if you truly did not understand what the movie was saying.
Also, "direct impact" is kind of a stretch. His co-worker he killed was simply mean to him at work. It's also left ambiguous whether or not he killed his "girlfriend", a woman who literally did nothing. And of course, the talk show host who did nothing either. And whether or not you think he was justified in kill his mom for lying to him about being adopted, she was in the hospital and unable to defend herself. He could have just walked away and started a new life.
You have been incredibly reduction in regards to the joker his whole time.
Are you really going to complain about me doing the same?>Also, "direct impact" is kind of a stretch. His co-worker he killed was simply mean to him at work
Case and point. This is absurdly reductive. Do you not see the irony here?
That coworker conspired specifically to get him fired.
He gave him the gun specifically to rat him out to the boss.
This is explicitly said in the movie.>It's also left ambiguous whether or not he killed his "girlfriend", a woman who literally did nothing
it was never said to have happened, it was never shown to a happens, and I have absolutely no reason to believe it did happen.
So I'm afraid arguing based on that is incredibly unconvincing.>And of course, the talk show host who did nothing either.
Except to for make him a renowned laughing stock and general loser, crushing every one of his dreams in the process.
Again, how reductive.>And whether or not you think he was justified in kill his mom for lying to him about being adopted
Again, there was so much more to it, if you bothered to actually watch the movie.
Alongside lying to him throughout his entire life, she also stood by and did nothing while he was physically abused brutally to the point of causing his major mental issues it is implied.
>>1035348>if you bothered to actually watch the movie.
That is needlessly antagonistic. I did not accuse you of not watching Black Panther. You clearly misunderstood it, but you probably did watch it.
Just because something isn't shown does not mean it's not implied. The Joker had killed tons of people at that point, and I have no reason he did not kill the woman he was obsessing over. But you're, it cannot be conclusively proven if your take is that he did not. But I see no reason not to assume he did, given his other actions in the film, up to and including imagining a fictional relationship with her.
Also, we have no idea if any of these slights actually happened or if the Joker simply imagined them. To me that takes away any reason to sympathize with his actions. All of it could have been imagined to justify the Joker's desire to kill these people because of his mental issues.
I have a hard time taking your word for it when you missed so much about the movie.
At least with the black panther, killmonger past is something that has to be assumed, given we do not get him as the protagonist, with the camera following him through his life.
meanwhile, with the joker, we do, so we know specific events that occurred.
For example, we know that according to the documents that the joker read, his mother stood by in did nothing while he was beaten.>The Joker had killed tons of people at that point,
Really? Remind me, how many people at that point did he murder?
I think you are letting your external knowledge in regards to other Batman material influence you. in the movie, he kills relatively few, with the first three being effectively self-defense, at least until he chases the one guy down anyway.
He is not some blind killer like you assume he is. The movie makes that clear. >Also, we have no idea if any of these slights actually happened or if the Joker simply imagined them
We are told the story from the joker's perspective.
If we are just going to discount the protagonists experience, then no story means anything.
Black panther was a drug fueled dream, I can say.
Killmonger's past doesn't have to be assumed. He talks about it, directly. We are told what happened to him by other characters. Just because don't see it does not mean it's not relayed to the audience.
Why didn't the Joker remember that? That's a serious question. If his mother had a string of abusive boyfriends who all abused him, or one who abused him numerous times, then he should have remembered that and not need to read it in a file. Unless this was a one-time incident, in which case we don't know her side of the story. Maybe she was bound and gagged when Arthur was beaten if it was one time. Maybe she was paralyzed with fear. Without knowing her side and only having the word of a psychopath to go on, I cannot know if he is justified in killing her or not, or even if the story is true.
Being the protaganist does not mean everything shown in the story is true or accurate. There is such a thing as the "unreliable narrator", where the person telling the story can't be trusted to give an accurate telling of events. Joker
makes it clear that the Joker is in fact mentally unstable and that his retelling of events are not reliable. And with that in mind, it makes sympathizing with any of his actions nearly impossible.
File: 1590195471487.jpg (53.5 KB, 498x610, 249:305, 1582027101853.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
File: 1590195599562.jpg (46.01 KB, 600x591, 200:197, 1590146436247.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035236>I liked it. A lot of people seem to be unhappy with it, but, I've largely been unable to see it.
I had to read that three times before I parsed it correctly. I was about to ask you how could you know you like the movie when you have "largely been unable to see it", but then I realized that the "it" in "see it" refers to people being unhappy with the movie, not the movie itself. Sometimes I wish English was less ambiguous and more like first-order logic.
Somebody talking about it is the very definition of an unreliable narrator.
People always tell stories to give themselves the most favorable light.
Why should I trust killmonger?
He hasn't exactly demonstrated himself to be a good guy, after all.>Why didn't the Joker remember that?
Reppressed memories is a common thing among those who have experienced trauma. Especially at a young age.
Would have thought this was common knowledge, but, yeah, many victims of abuse at a young age do not remember that abuse. It is something of a mental defense mechanism. >Being the protaganist does not mean everything shown in the story is true or accurate.
No, but what it does mean is that what is shown in the story is the protagonists perspective.
Because it's not just him who's saying things about himself, and the movie has not set him up to be an unreliable narrator? I'm not really sure where you are going with this. It's clear that what is said in Black Panther is what is actually happening and the movie does not say any of it is imagined, whereas Joker
directly states and goes out of it's way to say that some or all of the movie is imagined by Arthur.
Well yeah, what we see in the movie is what Joker thinks
happened, but the movie establishes that he's a murderous psychopath, so does it matter what he thinks happens? Especially when it may not even be true or accurate? It all sounds EXACLTY like what a murderous psychopath like the Joker would WANT you to believe so he could manipulate you into sympathizing with him. Giving a fake sob story about his abusive past is EXACTLY how he manipulated Harley Quinn, after all.
>>1035341>They don't really gel together or make him sympathetic.
I mean, the point is not to sympathize, just understand, understanding and sympathizing aren't the same things.
I don't think the movie was establishing that joker is sympathetic as much as it's showing how the character can be very charismatic.
I mean, the people who he inspires in the movie see him as something he is not and sympathize with who they assume
he is rather than who he actually
is. They aren't there to signal to the audience how they're supposed to feel about Arthur. I mean, it's ultimately consistent with the character, he's figuratively a wild card.
Where I am going is that movies are pointless unless we accept the event of the story.
If the joker is entirely unreliable, then no the movie even happened I could say. The joker has never done anything wrong, he's just imagining things for fun. He's actually a decent person in that case who would never hurt a fly.>so does it matter what he thinks happens?
Given he's essentially the one telling the story as the protagonist, yes.>It all sounds EXACLTY like what a murderous psychopath like the Joker would WANT you to believe so he could manipulate you into sympathizing with him
Again, as is typical of any story protagonist.
And once again there is nothing wrong with sympathy. You can sympathize without agreeing.
It's just a matter of empathy.
One person is arguing that he is supposed to be sympathetic, which I would disagree the movie makes him.
If you wanna argue that the way the protesters react to Arthur (sympathizing with him and attributing things to him he didn't actually do) is supposed to reflect what some members of the REAL-LIFE audience do with the character, I can see that interpretation. But I'm not sure the movie was trying to do that intentionally.>>1035359>Again, as is typical of any story protagonist.
Not all stories are carefully constructed falsehoods made to make you believe a certain thing in their own universe
. What we see happen in Star Wars is what actually happened in that setting, not just Luke making up something to manipulate someone or the audience.
And there IS a problem with sympathizing with a person or actions who aren't deserving of it. Like for example, a psychopathic murderer trying to manipulate you with a fake story.
File: 1590198833899.png (24.71 KB, 665x868, 95:124, 327712__safe_oc_artist-col….png) ImgOps Google
It falls so far from Batman that I have to wonder why they made it Batman. Like maybe their story was about a beaten up clown and they were worried people would compare it to Batman if they didn't make it Batman? I'm not really sure what they were doing there, but they wrote a story in the Batman universe that doesn't include Batman and in fact only includes one character from the universe at all, which isn't quite canon.
>>1035363>>1035363>So... anyone who's saying the movie wants you to sympathize with the Joker is just projecting their own views onto the character and missing the point of the movie?
Not necessarily. Most people have self-serving interpretations of things the more narcissistic they are and the more they interpret what they are watching as being ultimately about themselves.
But what self-serving looks like is ultimately a matter of one's personality, so for some it's validating (once you cherry pick some other details of the plot)
But character studies are not usually fiction that is meant to just
be empathized with or sympathized with, but also analyzed with one's emotional intelligence, to be presented with a character primarily meant to be thought about basically. Which, of course, is a failure of this movie when it's framing contradicts it's text, which of course could be intentional since the narrative is at times subtly rationally incoherent at times and sometimes even a bit cartoonish to the point that it's comes off as a textbook delusion of grandeur characteristic of manic psychosis. And if you step back and emotionally detach from the narrative, then it's as if the movie is demonstrating the additive deeply validating nature of manic delusions that makes them something anyone
can get caught up in.
>>1035360>Not all stories are carefully constructed falsehoods made to make you believe a certain thing in their own universe
No, but plenty have details missing that'd make the Jedi look bad, for instance.
They are, after all, a sect of religious fundamentalist extremists who are given immense state power and consider being a member of a rival religion itself to be a crime.
None of that was explained to Luke. Nor was that aspect of Obi-Wan Kenobi ever addressed.>And there IS a problem with sympathizing with a person or actions who aren't deserving of it. Like for example, a psychopathic murderer trying to manipulate you with a fake story
If this story is what he believes, I see no issue.
If he himself is lying, the problem isn't sympathy, it's him lying to get it
>>1035364>Like maybe their story was about a beaten up clown and they were worried people would compare it to Batman if they didn't make it Batman?
No, the explanation is really simple. Hollywood investors are becoming decreasingly tolerant to risk and feel safer investing in projects with recognizable branding.
The director of this movie basically admitted as such. He wanted to make a sort of late 70s "New Hollywood" style of movie in a market where it's hard to find investors willing to risk investing in unproven brand names.
I just could not find any reason to sympathize with the character at all. Everything he did seemed like a crazy person trying to justify why they were doing evil stuff. Which, you know, is exactly what it was. >>1035366
Your description of the Jedi is only accurate from a certain point of view, and it leaves out numerous important details.
Also, if someone is lying to get sympathy, it should not be given. That only encourages them to do it more.
That's part of the point.
That is why perspective matters.
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil" is an accurate statement, because from his point of view, they were.
That is why who the protagonist is is so important>Also, if someone is lying to get sympathy, it should not be given
If you know they are lying, yes.
Are you going to assume everybody is lying when they tell you there story?
But Anakin was wrong... He was manipulated by someone evil who told him what he wanted to hear. That's the point. >Are you going to assume everybody is lying when they tell you there story?
If they are clearly insane, yeah! You should be cautious of anything a crazy person tells you.
The question is, though, was he lied to?
There were plenty of faults in regards to the Jedi. And while Sheeve was manipulating him, so were the Jedi.
I mean, they straight up indoctrinate children.>If they are clearly insane, yeah! You should be cautious of anything a crazy person tells you.
I would be inclined to disagree.
The mentally ill are still people. They are certainly worthy of our compassion.
No. But anyway, Palpatine
did clearly lie. He told Anakin he knew the Sith secret to keep people from dying, but then almost immediately backpeddled on that and told Anakin they could figure it out if they worked together once Anakin was in too deep. The Jedi didn't "manipulate" Anakin. They may have held him back, prevented him from doing things he wanted like get married, but that's not the same as manipulating.
And they don't "indoctrinate" children. They train them to use this dangerous power they already possess and use it to help others.
Depends on the illness, honestly. Some mental illnesses make you see things that aren't real, makes you unable to feel empathy, and can make you tell lies even when there's no reason to do so. These can lead to a quite frankly dangerous person.
What makes you think that is a lie? Especially with the new stuff, it seems Force healing is well within the realm of possibility, and I have no real reason to doubt somebody like Palegius would seek such an ability out, or use it to prolong his own life.
If Sheev believed it to be an ability Palegius knew, why not say he could seek that power out, especially when he himself benefits? And there is no real reason to want Padme dead I can think of, so nothing to lose.
I consider religious indoctrination of children to be manipulative. Especially when you have such a contradictory doctrine as the Jedi seem to. >Depends on the illness, honestly. Some mental illnesses make you see things that aren't real, makes you unable to feel empathy, and can make you tell lies even when there's no reason to do so. These can lead to a quite frankly dangerous person.
Then I would suggest making judgement based on a case by case basis, rather than judging and entire group.
Though honestly, regardless, I feel all of them are deserving of sympathy and understanding.
File: 1590209702292.png (95.62 KB, 836x839, 836:839, 456359.png) ImgOps Google
Kettle and pot, much?
>>1035378>What makes you think that is a lie?
It was a lie because when he told Anakin the story of Darth Palegius, he acted as if he already knew the secret (whether or not Palpatine was Palegius' student who killed him in his sleep is surprisingly left ambiguous in a rare show of restraint from Lucas) But then once Anakin is in too deep to back out (having killed a Jedi and betrayed them), he tells him "Well, I don't actually know the power, but I'm sure we could figure it out if we work together." That's something real cult leaders do. Promise you things and then start walking back the things they promised. >I consider religious indoctrination of children to be manipulative.
Maybe in real life. But in the Star Wars universe, this religion has a connection to a very real and demonstrable power that is dangerous if the person wielding it is not taught how to properly use it. So simply calling it a "religion" isn't the whole story. >Especially when you have such a contradictory doctrine as the Jedi seem to.
Contradictory in what way?>Though honestly, regardless, I feel all of them are deserving of sympathy and understanding.
Then maybe you haven't been hurt by the mentally ill yet. I would use caution not to let that happen. >>1035379
Who is that directed at?
File: 1590211487455.png (31.89 KB, 363x468, 121:156, I don't know the answer to….png) ImgOps Google
Wow, that's shitty. At least the movie industry is dead now.
Movies aren't dead movie theaters
s are dead.
File: 1590212692064.png (57.9 KB, 330x347, 330:347, I'm not so sure this was a….png) ImgOps Google
Mmm, good point. Well, maybe I can hope, anyway.
Maybe if movies died, video games could fill the gap.
with how much they spend on movies, think of the games you could get.>>1035381>It was a lie because when he told Anakin the story of Darth Palegius, he acted as if he already knew the secret
I don't think I'd agree with that. It sounded to me like he was giving Anakin a lead, that also happened to be directed towards the dark side as he desired.
It never came across to me as him explicitly saying he had the ability. Though at worst, that was deceptive, not a lie.>But in the Star Wars universe, this religion has a connection to a very real and demonstrable power that is dangerous if the person wielding it is not taught how to properly use it.
Is that actually the case, throughout the movies? I do not recall any force usercompletely untrained doing anything that could be considered dangerous. It was always trained force users who had exhibited powers.
Only exception I can think of off hand is Rey using any abilities without training beyond the most basic. >Contradictory in what way?
mostly thinking the Jedi code, and of course how the council tends to act and behave, throughout the war.
They were pretty quick to want to shank Sheev despite supposedly killing captured enemies being wrong, as Anakin himself points out.>Then maybe you haven't been hurt by the mentally ill yet. I would use caution not to let that happen
One does not the whole make. This is why racism is bad.
Rey (and Broom boy) demonstrates that if you are born force-sensitive, you will begin to discover force powers on your own, even without training. That's why training is so important. It's dangerous for children to weild such a powerful force without knowing how to use it properly AND having the right mindset that the Jedi way teaches.
And of course they were going to kill Palpatine. He was a Sith lord who had been secretly manipulating the Jedi and the Senate for years. He was "too dangerous to be left alive."
Also, those Jedi went there to arrest
Palpatine at first. He's the one who went all cgi backflippy on them and merc'd 3 Jedi before Mace Windu decided to fight him with deadly force.
I'm personally not sure if I am willing to consider the sequel trilogy cannon.
None the less, does broom boy show anything that's actually dangerous? Only Rey had significant power that I remember. And supposedly that is because she is a dyad in the force.>He was a Sith lord who had been secretly manipulating the Jedi and the Senate for years. He was "too dangerous to be left alive."
As I recall they did not know much of that beyond that he was a with Lord in charge of the Senate. Which on its own is hardly reason for murder.
As Anakin rightly points out.
which is part of why Anakin does the right thing and saves his life.
Incidentally, this also helps the argument of brutal oppression of a religious minority.>Also, those Jedi went there to arrest Palpatine at first.
yes, they were there to arrest the sitting Democraticly elected leader of the republic without the authorization of the Senate, purely for his religion.
Seems to me Sheev had more than enough reason to resist their evident violent overreach of their authority.
And again, Mace chose to engage further force after he was no longer a threat
It's as canon as "Sheev" is canon. Broom Boy literally only showed force telekinesis. But that can be dangerous. It can be powerful enough to move Star Destroyers or simply be used to force choke someone. >As I recall they did not know much of that beyond that he was a Sith Lord in charge of the Senate.
That's enough! The Sith are known for lying and deceit, they are clearly evil. >Mace chose to engage further force after he was no longer a threat
But he WAS a threat! Because he kills Mace seconds later with lightning! He was only feigning defeat to trick Anakin, who immediately regrets his decision.
It's not George Lucas cannon, at the very least.
Anyway; You have to be pretty insanely powerful to do anything like that. Even Yoda struggled to move a pipe. And he's one of the greatest of his time.>That's enough! The Sith are known for lying and deceit, they are clearly evil.
That's hardly good reason. "He is evil because he is evil!".
You can justify the murder of anyone if you argue that way.>Because he kills Mace seconds later with lightning!
After Anakin disarmed him. Think it's safe to say he couldn't pull that off if Anakin didn't interfere.
As he should, of course. Mace was about to murder in cold blood the duly elected representative of the Senate, all because he belonged to the wrong religion.
Actually, he wasn't supposed to be in office. Palpatine exploited constitutional loopholes to remain in office even after the official expiration of his term. He then manipulated both sides of the war to have himself granted more and more emergency powers. By the time Episode 3 begins, Palpatine had become a virtual dictator, able to take any action in the Senate. (One could even say he was
the Senate). When he is found out, he declared the Jedi as traitors and had them all executed without trial. He then reorganized the Republic into the Galactic Empire, naming himself as Emperor.
This has been funny seeing you try to spin that into positive like the Empire's head of PR, but all of that was clearly manipulative and evil when you lay it out bare like that!
File: 1590218957618.jpg (173.14 KB, 960x926, 480:463, 1420658260759.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
As I recall, those emergancy powers were granted by the senate vote as was his stay. So, I don't think that's a 'loophole'.> When he is found out, he declared the Jedi as traitors and had them all executed without trial.
Just like Mace wanted to do to him. >He then reorganized the Republic into the Galactic Empire, naming himself as Emperor.
Which was done through vote, yes.>but all of that was clearly manipulative and evil when you lay it out bare like that!
As evil as the Jedi, sure!
That's why the proper choice of faction is the CIS.
>>1035437>As I recall, those emergancy powers were granted by the senate vote as was his stay. So, I don't think that's a 'loophole'.
The tie-breaking vote was some bumbling idiot who was given a government seat out of favoritism!>Which was done through vote, yes.
No it wasn't, he just did it! >CIS
File: 1590219728884.gif (128.4 KB, 500x500, 1:1, f7894b3ca1dfc1b31d885fa7cb….gif) ImgOps Google
>>1035438>who was given a government seat out of favoritism!
As is standard with politics!
Nothing wrong there>No it wasn't, he just did it!
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it was. They even have Padme complaining about the overwhelming support, saying "this is how democracy dies. With thunderous applause".>Who?
The Confederacy of Independent Systems
I'm pretty sure they were just cheering the announcement, I don't think they actually go to vote on it.
Ahh, the Separatists. Pretty sure they lost.
File: 1590255709733.png (30.34 KB, 200x303, 200:303, Five dollars.png) ImgOps Google
The movie industry dying won't kill movies. Peope will still make movies. The industry dying just makes way for more attention and cash flowing to productions that aren't grotesquely overpriced and forced to appeal to the most general customer base possible.
File: 1590279524327.png (35.21 KB, 452x427, 452:427, Reporting For Duty.png) ImgOps Google
$50 million of that was Robert Downey Jr. I'm sure they could've found some cheaper alternative.
File: 1590279680230.png (252.19 KB, 905x898, 905:898, 21.png) ImgOps Google
Like the vast majority of the MCU and superhero movies in general.
I disagree that they are all like that. Black Panther had plenty of meaning if you knew where to look. >>1035533
File: 1590280170569.png (24.71 KB, 665x868, 95:124, 327712__safe_oc_artist-col….png) ImgOps Google
Yeah, he's fuckin' expensive. They paid him more for the sequels.
File: 1590284432571.png (658.39 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 91bd7b9a890f949b5e6d4fd18d….png) ImgOps Google
I wish I lived in a society...
File: 1590285526810.jpg (27.43 KB, 428x320, 107:80, 1480780301765.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035564> if one of the protesters is the person who killed the Waynes (who we can call Joe Chill for simplicity), that means they are framed as villainous.
Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. This movie is hardly black-and-white morality; it has lots of gray to it. And it plays fast & loose with the traditional Batman story.
Also: every large group has some bad apples in it. Just because one protester is bad doesn't mean that the protesters as a whole are generally bad.
File: 1590285661929.jpg (136.28 KB, 750x936, 125:156, wayne-bruce.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Oh! And I finally found a relevant thread to post this image!
It wasn't just one bad protestor, though. They were shown causing riots throughout the city because of what the Joker did on TV.
The movie doesn't seem to understand what people who protest income inequality actually want and just painted them as evil jackasses who want to kill the rich, using the Batman story to deliver that message. >>1035565
Not the way they used it. Literally make them the worst villian in all of Batman's collection of villians and the very thing that motivates Batman.
File: 1590286420570.jpg (85.9 KB, 442x437, 442:437, crab-2018052818.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035568>The movie doesn't seem to understand what people who protest income inequality actually want and just painted them as evil jackasses who want to kill the rich,
Maybe my memory is off, but I don't remember the movie portraying the protesters like that. My interpretation was that the protesters resorted to violence in desperation only after years of their grievances being ignored.
Pretty certain there was actually mention of that going on. It's just that the clown iconogrophy was taken up after Wayne called the poor clowns.
I'd have to give it a rewatch, but, there was for certain mention of unrest due to the economic disparity.
Even if there were, they were still inspired toward violence because of the Joker's actions.
But even ignoring all of that! It's still bullshit to have the reason Bruce Wayne's parents got killed be people protesting income inequality. It makes protesters of such out to be violent villains and it funadmentally changes what Batman does and what he stands for. He's no longer against crime itself, but rather those same "clowns" who his father insulted on TV.
I feel like the protests in the movies were depicted as justified, that even if they had gone too far there were serious grievances that needed to be addressed. The movie wasn't really about the protests, it was about this mentally unstable guy getting abused his whole life for being mentally unstable, before finally going postal. This means we didn't get to see whether there were non-violent protests, or any hope of the disparate classes coming to an accord. That said, since this was all sparked by Joker killing a few people who I think most of us would be okay calling evil, it feels safe to say that at least within the confines of the movie, the upper class was just evil and the protestors were forced to resort to violence.>>1035578
Right, all that said, you're still right that this vastly alters Batman's backstory. A traditional Batman almost cannot possibly work in this setting.
And that's exactly my point. If you're going to co-opt elements of the Batman story for your pretentious movie, you have to be careful what it's actually saying by using those elements.
They could ave just as easily made this movie without any Batman stuff in it, and... I still think it would have been bad, but it wouldn't have been insulting.
I still think it's bad the movie was equating income inequality and those who protest it to violent criminals.
Only around the time of the Murry speech.
Prior to that, while there was unrest, it wasn't full scale rioting.>It makes protesters of such out to be violent villains and it funadmentally changes what Batman does and what he stands for.
Who cares? It isn't Batman's movie.
One question, as I have seen only clips of this movie.
Does the movie set it as a "as told by the Joker"?
Or does the movie play as a genuine origin story?
I remember that the Joker is canonically not even close to a reliable narrator.
Bruce is in it because it's a movie about the Joker.
The movie never focused on Batman. Batman didn't even exist in the movie. Just young Bruce Wayne, and he's certainly not the focus of the film.
Young Bruce Wayne isn't usually connected to (whoever the Joker was before he was) The Joker at all.
You can't have it both ways. The movie can't use Batman characters and Batman stuff and then say "It's not about Batman so it doesn't matter what it says." If you put Bruce Wayne in the movie, it DOES matter what you say and do to the character. And i'd say "fundamentally change why he became Batman" is a pretty big fuck you the character you technically did not have to put in the movie at all.
>>1035675>Young Bruce Wayne isn't usually connected to (whoever the Joker was before he was) The Joker at all.
No; But in this, Arthur was deceived into thinking he was. His mother told him he was the illegitimate son of Wayne, making Bruce his half-brother, and a representation of what could have been.
This was honestly a pretty heavy-handed plot point in the film. I found it rather annoyingly so. Surprised you missed it.>is a pretty big fuck you the character you technically did not have to put in the movie at all.
Maybe if it was the same setting, following the same cannon, I'd agree. Retcons destroying characters suck. But this is pretty clearly a new thing entirely.
It's only a 'fuck you' if you insist every Batman reboot be exactly the same.
I do not think that's reasonable.
Except that was a lie his deranged mother made up. So Bruce wasn't actually what he "could have become". He was unrelated to him in any way.
No, it's still a fuck you to the Batman character as a whole to create a version with this as his motivation for becoming Batman. Unless you are setting up that this Batman becomes a villanious Batman like "The Batman Who Laughs" or something, but nothing in the movie indicates this is the case, and with the (financial) success of this movie, it's likely going to be made canon to the new Robert Patterson Batman movie.
Yes, but as I said it's what Arthur thought
was the case, because
of the lie his mother told.
He isn't actually
related to him in any way, yes, but like I said, Arthur
believes he is.>No, it's still a fuck you to the Batman character as a whole to create a version with this as his motivation for becoming Batman.
What makes Batman such a sacred cow that he can never be changed or modified in a new telling of the story?
Where exactly is the line drawn for what can and cannot be changed in a new telling?
He believed it for like 10 minutes of movie. It's not really a good reason to destory another character for that story beat. >Where exactly is the line drawn for what can and cannot be changed in a new telling?
Changing elements of his origin that make it impossible to become a heroic Batman unless you are explicitly creating a villainous version of the character. Really, it's not that hard to see why that's essential to the character existing as a hero.
He definitely believed it for longer than that. It's not realized until when he goes to the psychiatric ward that his mother was lying to him. Took up a fair sized arc in the movie.
I can't tell if you're being coy, or just genuinely didn't see it.>Changing elements of his origin that make it impossible to become a heroic Batman unless you are explicitly creating a villainous version of the character.
There's a wide range of ways to take what we have here and build it to a 'heroic' batman. Most prominently, the question of whether the ends justify the means.
Batman's stance on not killing never really made sense. He sees first hand the results of not doing that. As a result, he punches the same people who cause misery for others only to delay them.
If you build off of this, you could have a batman who doesn't kill because
of what happened to his parents.
He could be someone who sees
the danger of "you get what you fucking deserve", as the Joker puts it.
But besides that: Why does that matter?
Again; This isn't Batman's story.
He is not the protagonist.
This is the Joker's story.
>>1035689>Batman's stance on not killing never really made sense.
I disagree. He saw first hand the results of senselessly taking life. The "punching the same people" bit is result of a failure of the system to keep them locked up. Batman can't punch the system.>He could be someone who sees the danger of "you get what you fucking deserve", as the Joker puts it.
Possible. But unlikely. His parents were shot by people protesting income inequality. People his father had characterized as lazy and selfish, and probably said worse in private. He would have no desire to help people less fortunate than himself, and would look down on them at best, see them as violent criminals at worst. A Batman who's war is not on crime, but on the poor. Not heroic at all
And as I keep saying, it matters because They chose to put Batman in the story
. They didn't have to have Bruce Wayne in the movie at all, and the certainly didn't need to change his Batman origin story because as you put it, it's not his story. But they did, and they have to be aware of what that says if you're going to use a character people care about.
He saw first hand the results of a murder over selfish reasons. It's not quite the same as killing a terrorist, or armed thugs.>The "punching the same people" bit is result of a failure of the system to keep them locked up. Batman can't punch the system.
He's a multi-millionaire.
He doesn't need to punch the system. >His parents were shot by people protesting income inequality.
Shot by a
person, actually. Not 'people'.
Moreover, murder is still murder.>He would have no desire to help people less fortunate than himself, and would look down on them at best, see them as violent criminals at worst.
Alternatively, he could see his father's failings in keeping the order of the city. He could see how his way of things, his disdain for them, resulted in chaos.
I think you're really letting your pessimisim cloud your judgement here. There's plenty of ways to make it your typical batman. If it's "possible" your complaints are moot until we see the next Batman movie, because "possible" means they absolutely could write it that way.>They chose to put Batman in the story
No they didn't.
They had Bruce in the story.
Batman has yet to be shown.> and the certainly didn't need to change his Batman origin story because as you put it, it's not his story
They didn't change it.
You can go back to your comics all you want.
Those are completely different stories, after all.
You can watch your cartoons, and your older movies, and they'll all have the version of Batman you prefer.
This is a new one.>But they did, and they have to be aware of what that says if you're going to use a character people care about.
If it's a new telling, as in a restart like we're seeing, I'd say the same thing to those people about any other character.
You're putting emotional weight just to an idea. The story itself that you care about still exists, and you can go back to it. This hasn't changed that cannon. This is a new setting entirely.
>>1035694>It's not quite the same as killing armed thugs.
Some people see the value of human life. Those "armed thugs" are people with families too. Batman killing one of them could make him the Joe Chill of some child somewhere and he understands that. >He's a multi-millionaire. He doesn't need to punch the system.
Bruce Wayne does use his wealth for charity and helping the city. But the government of Gotham is corrupt, that's why he took on the Batman persona in the first place "Batman Begins" shows this perfectly, when Bruce Wayne confronts the mob boss and the boss straight up tells him he doesn't give a shit because he's paid off with the right people. You can't buy corruption away because the act itself leads to corruption. >Alternatively, he could see his father's failings in keeping the order of the city.
He has no reason to do that in this version.>No they didn't. They had Bruce in the story.
That's really splitting hairs. Especially considering we see the moment Bruce becomes Batman in the film.>This is a new one.
I'm not against new versions of Batman's origin. I've seen numerous. The problem here is that this origin makes a traditional heroic Batman impossible, and the movie makes no attempt to clarify that this is supposed to be a villainous version of Batman motivated by greed and a disdain for the poor. Which could be an interesting story! But this story doesn't do anything with it. It Shoehorns in a Batman origin story even though it didn't have to, just to make Batman a villain and do nothing with that.
It's a lot harder to see him "valuing human life" of a simple killer who murdered his family for personal gain, as opposed to someone who did it in what they believe was a form of revenge in a class struggle.
That "value of human life" seems to me like something that'd come more naturally from an event where the killer had reasons beyond
self-serving greed.>But the government of Gotham is corrupt
Money, again, can help that.
Even if you do not yourself directly engage in that corruption, you can fund private investigators, rival politicians, and federal level lawsuits.
That'd do far, far better than anything Batman has ever accomplished.
Especially when he evidently just puts those criminals he captures in the hands of that corruption anyway. He doesn't actually do anything of benefit. He's just living out his angsty fantasies of violence on people because of the trauma he suffered as a kid.>He has no reason to do that in this version.
Given that it's quite literally what happened, no, he quite clearly does have reason to.
Again; You assume your one true vision is the only one possible, while there's plenty of alternatives.
be done. But, because you're convinced it can't be, you'll condemn the movie for something that hasn't even happened yet.>Especially considering we see the moment Bruce becomes Batman in the film.
Bruce most certainly didn't become batman just because he saw his parents die.
That type of thing is something plenty of kids live through.
Haven't seen very many bat-themed latex-wearing superheroes around the world>he problem here is that this origin makes a traditional heroic Batman impossible
You've directly stated that is not true.>>1035690>"Possible. But unlikely."
You're operating on your own presumption of what the film has to be, while ignoring any other possibilities.
The existing Batman story arc is already heavily unlikely. There's no reason whatsoever to assume this Batman could only be motivated purely by greed and disdain for the poor. I've pointed out one possible outcome already, and you yourself admitted it could happen.
>>1035710>a simple killer who murdered his family for personal gain
(the man who killed Bruce Wayne's parents who we will for simplicity's sake call) Joe Chill is not always characterized this way. Sometimes he is shown to be someone who did it out of desperation or poverty, and in nearly all other continuities Batman does not know who he is
and thus does not know his situation.
What you are describing already exists in the character. A Batman who understands crimes are committed by desperate people. The difference here is, his parents weren't killed randomly for money in this version. They were killed as a very political statement. >Haven't seen very many bat-themed latex-wearing superheroes around the world
Because it's a comic book, things are exaggerated. But there ARE people in the real world who take that pain and decide to use it to make the world a better place. That night was the beginning of his journey toward becoming Batman.
>>1035717> and in nearly all other continuities Batman does not know who he is and thus does not know his situation.
And so, like everyone else, assumes it's just a mugging gone wrong.>What you are describing already exists in the character.
That's the point, though.
You're complaining it changes the character too much.
It doesn't have to. You're just assuming it does.>>1035717>. But there ARE people in the real world who take that pain and decide to use it to make the world a better placeSome
, sure. It's certainly possible
. But that was the point. It's possible
. And so it was written. Same is the case for the Joker, as you admitted
Well this version of Bruce Wayne can't just assume it was a "mugging gone wrong" because even a quick google search will show that his parents died on the night of the income inequality riots and that the shooter said the exact same words the Joker did right before he instigated said riots by murdering a talk show host.
I think we are missing the point here. All of this would not even be a debate if they had not used income inequality protesters as villains in the first place. Just cut out the scene where the Waynes are killed by one, and the movie remains ambiguous. But adding that scene explicitly makes them the bad guys. Which I don't agree with.
"Mugging gone wrong" gives far more reason to want to punish brutally, and with lethality I'd say.
Somebody doing it in a warped logic of revenge would be far more questionable, and has more likelihood I'd think of getting the "killing is wrong" outlook Batman has. He could see it as a cycle. To kill is to spur others to kill, ad infinitum >But adding that scene explicitly makes them the bad guys. Which I don't agree with.
Okay. You do not have to politically agree with people in a movie.
I don't think that's ever been required.
You mean the people who MADE the movie, not the people in the movie. The people how MADE the movie decided to put that bit of political statement in the movie "People who protest income inequality are villains".
And yeah, I don't have to agree with the movie. But I also have the right to point out how I think their statement is wrong and quite frankly damaging to movements I side with. This movie framing income inequality protesters are villainous is, quite simply, bullshit.
>>1035741>You mean the people who MADE the movie, not the people in the movie. The people how MADE the movie decided to put that bit of political statement in the movie "People who protest income inequality are villains".
I'd consider that a significant stretch. It's certainly not confirmed by anything I've seen. Seems to be just your own presumptions.
Nonetheless; Even in that regard, you do not have to agree politically with people who make a movie.>And yeah, I don't have to agree with the movie. But I also have the right to point out how I think their statement is wrong and quite frankly damaging to movements I side with. This movie framing income inequality protesters are villainous is, quite simply, bullshit.
Okay. That's fine.
Doesn't make the movie bad, though, which was my main contention.
It certainly doesn't mean that Batman can't have the same set of values and general character in any future installments.
>>1035744>It's certainly not confirmed by anything I've seen
What isn't? That the movie is saying income inequality protesters are evil? Casting them as literally the worst villain in all of Batman's rouges gallery would be a clear indication of that. >Okay. That's fine. Doesn't make the movie bad, though
I'd say a movie taking a political stance that is completely against my own and shitting on my stance would make the film "bad" from my point of view. If you agree with the film's politics, you might think it's good. I don't.
>>1035751>That the movie is saying income inequality protesters are evil?
I don't think it did.>Casting them as literally the worst villain in all of Batman's rouges gallery would be a clear indication of that.
The Joker says himself that he's "not political". He never gave a damn about income inequality. Just about people who were mean to him personally.
His work colleague is working the same dead-end backalley job he was. His mother was supported only by him, living in the same decrepit conditions he was. He clearly has no issue killing poorer people too. >I'd say a movie taking a political stance that is completely against my own and shitting on my stance would make the film "bad" from my point of view.
Maybe from a subjective point of view.
But, then, I find those usually rather worthless. I can just say "It's just a movie, man".> If you agree with the film's politics, you might think it's good. I don't.
I don't think I do, but I suppose that's ultimately on how we classify its politics.
I certainly do not see what you do in it.
Not the Joker. "Joe Chill".
If subjective points of view are worthless, then ultimately so is yours and our conversation is pointless. You wouldn't have felt the need to defend your subjective point of view if it had no worth.
I wouldn't describe Alleyguy as "income inequality", personally. I rather doubt that was the particular mantra of most the protesters.
More, rich assholes're rich assholes.>If subjective points of view are worthless, then ultimately so is yours
Which is why I strive to outline what is in actuality, or to demonstrate what is inconsistent with the subjective.>You wouldn't have felt the need to defend your subjective point of view if it had no worth.
I'd describe it as combating definitive claims made against a movie.
Your post in >>1035228
never once said it was "subjective". Earliest we get "subjective" is >>1035247
, and of course that wasn't from you.
>>1035762> rich assholes're rich assholes.
You just described one of the core beliefs of income inequality protests, though. That billionaires are twisted sociopaths that exploit people for their fortunes.
You are being rather pedantic about subjectivity, here. It's understood that most people, when critiquing a work of art are speaking from a personal viewpoint and not from an objective one. It's impossible for a work of art to be objectively good or bad.
File: 1590370258445.png (172.47 KB, 456x426, 76:71, german-submarine-u511.png) ImgOps Google
>>1035717>They were killed as a very political statement.
Eh, I'd say that is giving too much credit to the murderer. He murdered them because of his hatred of them and what they represented. His hate was driven by political concerns, he didn't have any lofty "political statement" in mind when he murdered them. It was just hate.
One of, perhaps, but certainly not exclusive to them.>It's understood that most people, when critiquing a work of art are speaking from a personal viewpoint and not from an objective one.
I certainly have never understood that.
I try to strive from a consistent and objective standpoint. To rationalize a movie in terms of "good" and "bad". That particular metric may end up being 'subjective', sure, but the means by which we reach there I think ought to be tangible and objective.
Quality, I think, is objective. Where it specifically falls, that is the measurement, is where it cannot be said definitively. But, that's ultimately the same for everything. Even temperature. Which is why we create our arbitrary metrics to judge.
Pretty much how I felt.
I don't think it's accurate to call him a protester.
And besides; One man's action does not a whole group make.
That kind of criticism sounds completely useless for assessing whether or not you will enjoy a work of art yourself. You want to know what the critic felt when he experienced the art, not objective peices of information that anyone could get from reading the movie's description. What you said just now sounds like how a robot
would review a film. Are you a robot?>>1035766
The riots were political in nature, and I think it's clearly he targeted the Waynes because
they were rich. We don't even see him take any of their possessions.
>>1035773>That kind of criticism sounds completely useless for assessing whether or not you will enjoy a work of art yourself.
I don't think so. A well written story certainly has more likelihood to capture an audience than a shoddily written one.
It might not guarantee I'll like it, or someone else will, but it'll go a fair ways into guessing which one it'd be.>You want to know what the critic felt when he experienced the art, not objective peices of information that anyone could get from reading the movie's description.
Given how basic movie descriptions are, I rather doubt there's much of anything of worth in one. Not unless you're getting a total breakdown, in which case you'd be better off watching the entire movie.
In any case; Absolutely not. I do not want to know how a critic "felt". That's completely worthless to me. I am not that critic, they lived a completely different life to me, and I do not know them personally. That judgement is completely worthless to whether or not I personally would enjoy a film, because that's just their
emotions, not mine
. >What you said just now sounds like how a robot would review a film.
A machine can only relay data. Data is meaningless without judgement. Judgements, however, can be based upon data. Should
be based on data.>Are you a robot
No. But, I admit I do wish to strip from my body the weaknesses of my flesh and to attain the glory and purity that the Omnissiah offers.
Yeah, but the best written stories could still hold political views or stances that make it impossible for someone to enjoy. I don't care how well it's written, a story about white supremacists isn't going to appeal to me. >Absolutely not. I do not want to know how a critic "felt". That's completely worthless to me. I am not that critic, they lived a completely different life to me, and I do not know them personally.
You don't need any of that to empathize with someone. Isn't that what you were going on about earlier?
File: 1590371457192.jpg (72.73 KB, 500x462, 250:231, 1500157706372.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035744>Doesn't make the movie bad, though, which was my main contention.
I can disagree with political messages of a movie while still otherwise enjoying the movie.>>1035751> That the movie is saying income inequality protesters are evil? Casting them as literally the worst villain in all of Batman's rouges gallery would be a clear indication of that.
I disagree. Another possible message is "Murder is always wrong, even for a good cause". At most, the movie portrayed Joe Chill as an evil murderer. It didn't make a clear statement about the income-inequality protesters (most of whom were probably non-violent) as a group.
>>1035779>Yeah, but the best written stories could still hold political views or stances that make it impossible for someone to enjoy.
Only if they're blinded by their politics.
Otherwise, you ought to be able to set aside your politics and enjoy a good story. If the story's done well, the politics of it should hardly be the selling point, after all. >You don't need any of that to empathize with someone. Isn't that what you were going on about earlier?
Being able to empathize
does not mean you will experience the same thing
that they do.
This should be rather obvious.
Yeah, no. It doesn't matter how well a story is told if it's saying or promoting harmful things.
You don't have to experience the exact same things. I've had plenty of times where people have said they felt something watching a movie and I didn't share the feeling (i.e. feeling sympathy for the Joker). But the most important aspect of any work of art is how it makes the viewer feel
. That's where entertainment is derived.>>1035786
File: 1590371838081.jpg (671.5 KB, 1214x933, 1214:933, jokernobatman_20191011_sit….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I think it's worth watching, for the memes if nothing else.
I find that a very close-minded way of looking at film and art in general.
Almost fascistic, really, considering their mindset on art that does not benefit their ideals.>You don't have to experience the exact same things.
Then what's the point of hearing how a reviewer felt? I am not them. I do not feel what they do. > But the most important aspect of any work of art is how it makes the viewer feel. That's where entertainment is derived.
For me, the entertainment has always been in the story itself. It's why I read so much into things like Battletech lore.
Emotions are only ever a part of something. One that's given far too much emphasis in our society, I'd say.
Oh, I definitely think it had plenty to say. Between pointing out issues of mental illness and the treatment we give people suffering that, income inequality as you point out, cultural differences leading to clashes between the elite and the plebs, and the rather nice sticking line of "you get what you fucking deserve", there was plenty food for thought in this film.
I do enjoy it mostly for the story, however. That is what gets the biggest praise from me. Seeing the way a man like Arthur can be driven to the breaking point, and beyond
given his intention when he got to the show, is quite an experience.
Granted. But there has to be some subjectivity there. Otherwise you are just saying what literally happened in the film. Yeah, the Hulk punched a robot. But why? What was the build up to that moment? What is the movie trying to make you feel in that moment and did it succeed (atleast for that person)
>>1035805>. Yeah, the Hulk punched a robot. But why? What was the build up to that moment?
You realize both those things are still objective items in the movie you can talk about, right?
You can point to the reasons. You can explain the rationale. You can even say what a character is feeling.
All of this is possible from an objective lens.
The movie THINKS it's saying something, but it never actually delivers on it. Like I said, I never once felt sympathy for the Joker, even though I feel the movie expected us to. As I pointed out waaaay back, all of that just sounded like a madman trying to justify it's evil actions.
The things the movie DOES end up saying, are on accident and not direct. "Those who protest income inequality are evil" for example.
The movie thinks it's saying something because it is. You just evidently don't like what it's saying. >. Like I said, I never once felt sympathy for the Joker, even though I feel the movie expected us to.
And like I said, that's your own issue.>The things the movie DOES end up saying, are on accident and not direct. "Those who protest income inequality are evil" for example.
That's what YOU
project on to the film.
I sure don't agree with that take. I have absolutely no cause to think that is the take. It's an absurd take, after all. It makes about as much sense as saying Black Panther was pro Ethno-Nationalism.
Even if we were to grant that, ignoring clear tells in film, that still leaves the other two.
Your take on what objectivity has to be is strangely limited for no good reason I can see. But, if you want to say you've got a different standard than what I use, fine. Then I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
>>1035810>It makes about as much sense as saying Black Panther was pro Ethno-Nationalism.
There were many different ethnicity living in Wakanda, though. So that's not even a legitimate take. But "a movie that has an income inequality protester shoot and kill a little boy's parents in front of them may not have a positive view on those people" is a completely legitimate take.
The Joker never makes his greivences clear. He's not motivated by income inequality. Just vague "we live in a society" bullshit about how put upon he is because some people are mean to him. The movie is incredibly boring and never gets around to having an actual point. Unless you are LIKE the Joker and you see society as mean and putting up "people like you" (whoever that is) there's nothing in the movie to pull you into the story.
Ok, so lets break it down then. We both agree that the what happens in a movie, what motivates the characters, what the characters feel and do and what elements in the movie build on those things is important.
We disagree that "what was the movie trying to make me feel and did it succeed" is important, because different people will feel different things. I think that information is important, even if I don't agree and don't feel the exact same thing as the critic.
Was there? I do not recall that being the case. As I understood it they're an isolationist society built off of three tribes.
Certainly seems as legitimate to me as "this one random guy did something shitty because he hated a rich person, therefor that represents everyone who ever says anything about income inequality ever".>The Joker never makes his greivences clear.
No. That wasn't necessary. The movie
makes his greivences clear.>Just vague "we live in a society" bullshit about how put upon he is because some people are mean to him.
"mean to him" seems rather reductionist. Should I just go ahead and say Killmonger became a terrorist just because he didn't live in a rich area?>The movie is incredibly boring and never gets around to having an actual point.
Seemingly because you dislike the point.
The only way that makes sense to me is if you assume any action done by any individual in a group, ever, is reflective of the entire group.
Which is just insane.
>>1035816>We disagree that "what was the movie trying to make me feel and did it succeed" is important, because different people will feel different things.
I would describe it as "irrelevant in a review", rather than unimportant.
A guy's story about his grandad's musings on corn can be exceptionally impactful to someone, really change their life around because of what it made them feel. That's not unimportant to them. It's just, I'm not likely to share that feeling. Feelings are far from universal. So, if I'm trying to tell someone whether to watch something, how I 'feel' is useless.
Why frame them as protesters at all? Why have that be the motivation for killing the Waynes? All it does is muddle the message by making them take an undeniably evil action. We don't see an opposite site of that. We don't see other protesters making positive change and NOT killing people. We see them rioting. >>1035819
That's all it was. They were mean to him. He felt put upon by society and like he wasn't getting what he deserved and that that was somehow the rest of society's fault because the people around him were assholes. It's not really a stance that easy to identify with.
I don't think you understood what the Killmonger character was actually a commentary on. It wasn't just his
being poor. But the systemic
oppression of black people in the US for decades, the effects of which can still be seen and felt today.>>1035822
It can be very personal like that, but it can also be very broad and universal. Most people felt sad when they shot Bambi's mom, for example. Maybe a few sociopaths didn't, but the point is, the movie tried to make you feel something, and succeeded. I think that's important to assessing a movie. What it wants you to feel, and if other people felt it. That to me says the movie is good at eliciting those feelings, even if it doesn't always work on your personally. If it doesn't work on your personally, then you can disagree and say it's a bad film. It's your right to do so.
>>1035835>That's all it was. They were mean to him.
Yeah, definitely not. I get that you weren't paying much attention to the movie, but, come on man.
There was a lot more to it than that.> and that that was somehow the rest of society's fault because the people around him were assholes.
He didn't shoot randos. You're just projecting here.>I don't think you understood what the Killmonger character was actually a commentary on.
I don't think you understood what the Joker character was actually a commentary on.
>>1035835> I think that's important to assessing a movie. What it wants you to feel, and if other people felt it.
Personally, I think you can establish if it will do that by looking at the why
it creates that reaction.
By looking at what the character does, says, feels, what lead up to it.
>>1035837> don't think you understood what the Joker character was actually a commentary on
Sure I do!
How a movie tries
to make someone feel something has nothing to do with whether or not it succeeds
at it. Only reactions can do that.
Yeah, sorry, referencing some major bigotry isn't really making me see your point of view. Just makes you look worse. >>1035842
Yes, but how
it goes about that is a far better metric on if
it will, than the feelings of someone I know nothing about.
Well that was mostly a joke, but I do think the trend in Hollywood is problematic. Also>bigotry
That word... you keep using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.
>>1035844>That word... you keep using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.
What do you think it means?
Quick search gives me the simple "Intolerance or prejudice, especially religious or racial; discrimination (against); the characteristic qualities of a bigot."
Which I think absolutely would apply here.
File: 1590378295499.jpg (191.24 KB, 500x563, 500:563, oh-its-the-plot-1403737489….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035835>Why frame them as protesters at all? Why have that be the motivation for killing the Waynes?
Because having it just be a random mugging wouldn't fit into the rest of the movie at all. It would be like a deus ex machina
.>>1035835> We don't see other protesters making positive change
We also don't see them reading books, exercising, cleaning their guns, cooking dinner, washing the dishes, or taking a shit. Presumably they do all those things. Showing the protesters making a positive change isn't part of the plot
, so it isn't shown in the movie.
Labeling it "white male rage" just because the character's white, ignoring the reasons and the setup, just focusing purely on the race and gender, is flatly bigotry.
That should be obvious.
Should I point to Killmonger and say he's just exhibiting "Black male rage"?
Would that not be exceptionally bigoted of me?
File: 1590378556568.png (177.57 KB, 642x549, 214:183, 93e3f7678982913b5fcab08d86….png) ImgOps Google
Did you watch Black Panther?! Also, you keep bringing him up but Killmonger wasn't the protagonist. He was explicitly the villain! Even if you understood his motivations, you understand that his methods are terrible and you aren't supposed to side with him.
Joker doesn't have that distinction. Someone could very easily side with the Joker and the movie never tells them that would be wrong to do. Which is dangerous, especially considering the type of people who liked this movie and see society as owing them something they aren't getting.
I bring him up because you care.
You've dodged the point. Would it not be biggoted of me to say Killmonger's just exhibiting "black male rage"?>Even if you understood his motivations, you understand that his methods are terrible and you aren't supposed to side with him.
Cool. The same could be said for the Joker.>. Someone could very easily side with the Joker and the movie never tells them that would be wrong to do.
Do you really have to have someone tell you murder is wrong?
If you do, you have a pretty skewed moral compass.
>>1035850>Cool. The same could be said for the Joker.
Mmm, not so much. Like he said, Joker was the protag, not the antag.>Do you really have to have someone tell you murder is wrong?
I don't think every person who watches the movie needs to be told that, but it only takes a few other abused people to take the wrong message from the movie. "Violently striking back can be successful." As the movie hasn't done this, it could potentially motivated the unhinged to commit murder.
Basically the same argument you used to get from the religious right about video games, music, and D&D.
If you let the kids play that, they'll become witches and sinners!
What about that confused you?>>1035850>Do you really have to have someone tell you murder is wrong?
Didn't you say earlier that Batman's no-killing rule "doesn't make much sense"?>Cool. The same could be said for the Joker.
Not really, he's the protagonist of the movie, and never shown to be wrong in his actions or motivations. I understand that being a murderous clown is wrong, but the guy who "watches that movie ever day as he works out" may not. Especially if he thinks society has wronged him and he's being put upon for other groups getting a say in things now.
>>1035853>Mmm, not so much. Like he said, Joker was the protag, not the antag.
So? That just makes it easier to understand his motivations, if anything. The methods are still quite clearly murder. Murder is one of the more universal "wrongs" in civilized society.>but it only takes a few other abused people to take the wrong message from the movie.
That could happen to quite a wide range of people in a wide range of media. I do not think it's worth the cost to artistic freedom, just because of a minority of people who might
try something after seeing a movie. Especially when I'd say someone like that is bound to do something anyway, given simple media coverage of violence.
Unless we're going to shut down news media as well, I don't buy the argument.
You've dodged the point. Would it not be biggoted of me to say Killmonger's just exhibiting "black male rage"?>Didn't you say earlier that Batman's no-killing rule "doesn't make much sense"?
And I stand by that.
Did you know killing doesn't contain only murder?
That there are other ways to kill, without murdering?>Not really, he's the protagonist of the movie, and never shown to be wrong in his actions or motivations.
Murder itself is wrong. He goes to prison for this. The city goes to absolute shit for this. I don't think it's shown at all as a 'good' thing. >I understand that being a murderous clown is wrong, but the guy who "watches that movie ever day as he works out" may not. Especially if he thinks society has wronged him and he's being put upon for other groups getting a say in things now.
I'd say someone like that'd be bound to do something anyway. It's hardly worth stifling artistic liberty over something like that. Just look at the media, and how they plaster any disastrous event all over the place.
Someone who's lacking that most basic moral scruple isn't going to somehow have it just because he didn't watch the Joker.
Though I've yet to hear any examples of someone shooting up anywhere over the Joker anyway. Just fearmongering and panick from the media, basically begging
someone to do it.
It would be bigoted, and comically missing the point of what the character was about. I don't think you understand what the "white male rage" skit was actually commenting on, though. >>1035857>That there are other ways to kill, without murdering?
Ahh, so it's a semantics game. Gotcha. For the record, I don't think killing is justifiable just as a rule. Justifying it once makes it too easy to justify it again. This is often also the motivation for Batman.>I'd say someone like that'd be bound to do something anyway.
All the more reason not to give them any more motivation to do it.
>>1035858>It would be bigoted, and comically missing the point of what the character was about.
Cool. Then so it is with the Joker.> I don't think you understand what the "white male rage" skit was actually commenting on, though.
Besides scoring points by being biggoted to so-called "oppressors"? It was a vapid and generally worthless look. >Ahh, so it's a semantics game.
Absolutely not, no, most definitely. If you think there's not a MASSIVE, GIGANTIC difference between MURDER
, you've got some seriously messed up moral standards.
A woman shooting her would-be rapist is in no way, shape, or form the moral equal to a murderer who shoots someone in cold blood.>All the more reason not to give them any more motivation to do it.
So censor absolutely everything that could possibly give anyone an inkling to do anything wrong.
Again, giving distinctly fascistic vibes, with their standards for art.
A thousand movies have done what Joker did, but better and without being boring OR ruining another character.
Yeah, you didn't get the skit. I'm not sure I should waste time trying to explain it to you.
You don't have to censor EVERYTHING, just use cation when making a movie about this kind of character and showing him to be the protaganist and never showing his actions to be in the wrong. Fight Club had the same kind of character with the same motivations (interestingly also a white male with rage), but he was shown to be the bad guy pretty clearly.
Maybe. I haven't seen them recently. And I certainly do not believe for one second that it "ruined a character".
You'll have to wait for the 2nd movie for that, since as you yourself admitted >>1035690>"Possible. But unlikely.">Yeah, you didn't get the skit. I'm not sure I should waste time trying to explain it to you.
It's alright. I'm more than happy to dismiss you and it as a classic example of hypocritical bigots being hypocritical bigots. >You don't have to censor EVERYTHING, just use cation when making a movie about this kind of character and showing him to be the protaganist and never showing his actions to be in the wrong.
Right, so we can only make movies in the way you
want, as supreme moral authority.
Again, incredibly fascistic. That's quite literally their stance on art. Art can be made, but only if it serves the ideology. Can't make art critical of the ideology, that could be dangerous
File: 1590382444449.jpg (26.82 KB, 400x517, 400:517, 1396220945233.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035860>never showing his actions to be in the wrong
He's the Joker, one of the most famous villains
in the Batman canon. He murders people in cold blood. What else do you need to show that his actions are wrong?
And it's certainly not like the entire car ride at the end of the movie shows the city flowing with happy flowers, food for all, and a sunshining day.
The whole place is burning. Everything fell apart. It's utter chaos, out there.
That's normally true, but this version of the Joker is the protagonist
. We follow his story and his actions and are expected to sympathize with him. The only thing the film does to show his actions are in the wrong is make him the Joker and because this version of the character is so far removed from other versions (the Joker doesn't even have a canon backstory anywhere else) that is simply not enough. >>1035861
You're getting so hung up on calling it "bigotry" you're ignoring what it's actually critiquing. Did you really shut your brain off because it said "white"? Because I didn't when you said "black" I assesed what you said and I came to the conclusion that calling it "black male rage" was incredibly reductive and missing the point of what it was about. >>1035863
Caused by the lazy "clowns" who didn't want to work, according to the movie.
>>1035864> I came to the conclusion that calling it "black male rage" was incredibly reductive and missing the point of what it was about.
Problem is that the same
is true for the Joker.
Though I do not think "white male rage" or "black male rage" would EVER be acceptable.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to drag race into it.
The actions of one certainly do not reflect the whole, and 'rage' is not exclusive to any one race nor has it ever been.
Calling anything "black male rage" or "white male rage" is bigoted.>Caused by the lazy "clowns" who didn't want to work, according to the movie.
Most assuredly not. But you've spent most this thread making shit up, so it isn't exactly surprising you think this.
File: 1590382905926.jpg (76.8 KB, 680x720, 17:18, 1555378810935.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035864>according to the movie.
According to Thomas Wayne. I don't think the movie endorses Thomas's opinion.
I actually found a video discussing this topic fairly well.
Yeah, no man. The movie makes pretty damn sure you understand that these people have genuine grievances.
And again, the actions of one do not make the whole.
File: 1590384088569.jpg (58.62 KB, 1200x639, 400:213, bob eugenics.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I can agree with him at least in regards to it being complete clickbait on the part of SNL.
If you want to say that the Oscars are shit, I'll agree.
But shitting on an entire race to do it, that's bigotry plain and simple.
I don't really buy it. Especially since he then goes on to point what apparently swamped the stuff was a south korean
flick, doing much the same thing, which rather demonstrates the claim to be nonsense.
But, the people running the Oscars aren't exactly representative of the common white person, in any case.
I like his breakdown on how the elite has a habbit of making these terms to shut down arguments of the aggrieved though. That's quite true.
I think his dismission
of it, just because it's 'white men', however, is utter bullshit. He starts going on to use it himself, ignoring any context of instances of rage, in the exact same way
, as though it's only important that it's white
people doing it.
, not the race, is what's common throughout media. Dismissing it as 'race' is exactly the problem, and it's why so many call it out as bigotry. Because it ignores what's going on. It's just dismissive only on the grounds of the race being portrayed.
Ironically, he sees exactly the issue, and then goes on to say "Hey, that makes sense" in much the same way as so many who had seen those earlier racial and cultural tropes created of a general lack of intelligence would do.
He falls in to the same trap, basically intended from the getgo by the people, dare I say scumbags, who created the term and started using it themselves.
I mean, this isn't super shocking. Bob's got major issues. But, still, considering he can so perfectly point out the issue of these elites using shit like "white male rage" to dismiss and insult any strugglers regardless of their grievance, and then fall straight in to the trap of that lot? It's a bit pathetic.
Yeah? Again, I have to ask, because you seem to miss so much: Did you even watch the film?
Because at this point, I'm starting to suspect you watched reviews
of the film, and took that as what must have happened.
Besides the constant news referencing exactly that, either on television or in the newspapers, you directly see it time and time again throughout the city. The place is a hellhole. The movie then doubles on that by having it follow Arthur, one of those exact people who are suffering as a result of the major societal issues, to the point of even losing his access to social services that allow him to get the drugs he needs for his medication. We see the issues of his job, and the horrible state of that place. We see how run down and destroyed that his apartment complex is, which several people clearly live in. Hell, the very first thing we're shown in the show is Arthur holding up a "going out of business" sign, doing a pretty excellent job of showcasing how the city's going through rough economic times right off the getgo.
The movie spends an awful lot of time making sure that the city's a dreary, awful place. And then, the moment we see anywhere nice
, it's the Wayne family mansion. A huge, beautiful mansion, cleanly kept, and with a massive iron gate, with plenty of decorations around the place0. We see the same for the theater, with gildings, clean clothes, and gold trim to everything. Again, unlike everywhere else around the city, it's depicted as nice
. As clean, orderly, elegant, and not covered in dust and debris.
If I'm dead honest with you, I thought it was all a little too much. I got the impression of being in a dream sequence at the theater, and the way everything was covered in dust elsewhere made me think more of Fallout than of a rough neighborhood. Felt like they were hitting me over the head with it.
I watched the film. It was painfully boring, but I sat through the whole thing.
You mention that the city is made to look dreary and horrible. I did not take this to be a sign of economic disparity. I saw it as trying to ape the cinematography of older, better movies film in the 70s during the sanitation strikes. They had a unique look because of those strikes, making New York look dingy and disgusting, because trash was not being collected. This movie is just copying that look, it's not actually trying to make a statement in doing so. It just knows that that's how "important" movies looked.
File: 1590385248384.jpg (20.2 KB, 440x474, 220:237, Money Money Money Money Mo….JPG) ImgOps Exif Google
So if I understood this correctly, and I may not have because this dude talks at like 10 words per second and his only visual cues are repeated stamps of weird man faces, his argument is that Joker sucked and deserves no credit for anything, and the reason some significant portion of the population likes it more than the actual winner of the awards (Parasite) is because the main character is a white male rather than a Korean male. Further, the SNL skit mocking "white male rage" wasn't meant to dismiss the concerns of white males, which may be legitimate, but to point out that movies tend to cater to angry white males.
Yeah, makes sense to me, I don't really have a rebuttal to that one.
MovieBob views aren't perfect. I'm not sure your out of context tweet is proof, but I personally do not like his constant assertion that Magneto from the X-Men was right and that we wanted his view to be portrayed as such in X-Men movies. But regardless, I believe he succinctly sums up the issue here.
You can't ignore the race of these characters when you consider which race makes up the majority of people in the Academy. You ignored the part where this view ISN'T being suppressed by the "elites". It's being celebrated. There is no dismissing of the problems the skit dubs "white male rage", when these movies are consistently getting accolades poured on them
Well at least that's a reasonable reason. I don't think that's what they were going for, or if it was they were using it to tie in to economic issues of that era, but I can at least see the logic.
Still, it wouldn't explain the drastic clash between the poorer areas, and the wealthy areas. >>1035876
I would presume the Korean film didn't get as much traction because most people in the US don't live in South Korea, personally.
It may be great, but I never saw it in my local theater, and I certainly never saw advertisements for it.
File: 1590385994818.jpg (388.29 KB, 2098x1500, 1049:750, Movie gasthemall bob.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I'd recommend looking at his timeline some time. He's tweeted out a lot of completely batshit insane junk.>You can't ignore the race of these characters when you consider which race makes up the majority of people in the Academy.
Considering Bob says a Korean flick won pretty well out, I don't think it really matters.> You ignored the part where this view ISN'T being suppressed by the "elites". It's being celebrated.
see the media reaction to the Joker, right?
Don't tell me you somehow missed article after article talking about it like it was the 2nd coming of the antichrist.
that is so absurdly reductive to the things depicted in those countless movies.
It's something I explicitly said in my last post, which I guess you failed to read.
"I think his dismission of it, just because it's 'white men', however, is utter bullshit. He starts going on to use it himself, ignoring any context of instances of rage, in the exact same way, as though it's only important that it's white people doing it.
Rage, rage, not the race, is what's common throughout media. Dismissing it as 'race' is exactly the problem, and it's why so many call it out as bigotry. Because it ignores what's going on. It's just dismissive only on the grounds of the race being portrayed.
Ironically, he sees exactly the issue, and then goes on to say "Hey, that makes sense" in much the same way as so many who had seen those earlier racial and cultural tropes created of a general lack of intelligence would do.
He falls in to the same trap, basically intended from the getgo by the people, dare I say scumbags, who created the term and started using it themselves.">There is no dismissing of the problems the skit dubs "white male rage", when these movies are consistently getting accolades poured on them
So as long as it gets some shitty medal from a bunch of old elites, it's okay?
We can just dismiss the grievances of people, their struggles, as "white male rage", because some old folk pinned a gold star on it, while other people wrote article after article about how it was going to cause mass murderers to spew forth killing everyone and kickstarting some kind of tyrannical society?
I don't buy it.
And, again, like I said; That's still shit. It's still bigotry, regardless. >>1035865
"Though I do not think "white male rage" or "black male rage" would EVER be acceptable.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to drag race into it.
The actions of one certainly do not reflect the whole, and 'rage' is not exclusive to any one race nor has it ever been.
Calling anything "black male rage" or "white male rage" is bigoted."
If I had to guess, the backlash was because nobody heard of it in the US.
Certainly, I never did anyway.
It's probably good. Might even be better than the Joker. I didn't see it, though, because it isn't easily available to me or advertised.
I think that's ultimately true for most people.
"the media" is way too vague a thing to be considered. Lots of outlets loved the movie. Some hated it. But in either case, the Academy, the people who's opinions actually matter on films, nominated it for their highest awards. As they do with most movies about white male rage. That doesn't sound like dismissal at all. It sounds like celebration.
Calling them "a bunch of old elites" is really reductive of who these people are and what power they have. Last I checked old white guys ran most of the country and had the vast majority of the money.
Let me phrase it as "the majority of the media" then.
Certainly was the majority that I saw. And boy
were they mad about it. When I said earlier they were practically begging for someone to shoot up one of the showings, I meant it. Seriously, it was insane. >But in either case, the Academy, the people who's opinions actually matter on films,
According to who? The Academy? I don't care what the Academy thinks. >As they do with most movies about white male rage.
Calling it that is plainly dismissive, and more than a little racist as I've already explained.
There's a lot more to it.>That doesn't sound like dismissal at all. It sounds like celebration.
By some old farts who's opinion nobody really cares about beyond other old farts who think that the gold star the teacher puts on the board means something.
I find their opinion quite a ways less important than the people writing articles.> Last I checked old white guys ran most of the country and had the vast majority of the money.
Oof, and here we're getting into another
example of your rather worrying at this point racism.
There's more to their character than their race.
And you called me
reductive for saying "old elites".
>>1035892>According to who?
According to people who make movies and issue the best movies awards...
How is it racist to say that the majority of politicians and richest people in the world are white? It's a fact. I said nothing of their character at all. Just that they are, in fact, white. Which is an undisputed fact.
>>1035893>According to people who make movies and issue the best movies awards...
I think if it was that big a deal to them, we'd have a lot more artsy films, and a lot less MCU style stuffs.
Strikes me that there's a reason not all films are done in noir colorschemes, with no dialogue any more. Pretty certain money
speaks more to them than does the gold stars from the academy.
And, that's only in regards to the filmmakers anyway. To be honest, I don't care much for their opinion either. > I said nothing of their character at all. Just that they are, in fact, white. Which is an undisputed fact.
It's the implication of the line. I mean, you decided it was a relevant point to bring up, after all. If it was so meaningless, why say it?
>>1035898>I mean, you decided it was a relevant point to bring up, after all. If it was so meaningless, why say it?
Because my point was that the concerns of white males are not being dismissed because white males make up the majority of most powerful people in the country and possibly the world. And it's silly to even think they even could be dismissed.
I think that's why your comparison to Killmonger is so annoying. He's not part of a group who couldn't possibly be dismissed but in fact often and historically have been.
>>1035900>Because my point was that the concerns of white males are not being dismissed because white males make up the majority of most powerful people in the country and possibly the world
Then you completely missed my point. Ironically, falling for the exact same trap I was complaining about Movie Bob falling in to.
It isn't "concerns of white males" as though that's some hegemonic class of hive-minded drones.
Maybe this is a shock to you, but, not all people of one race think alike
Not all of them suffer the same things.
Not all of them care
about the suffering of those of their same race.
It isn't that "white male issues" are being dismissed. It's that issues people
have are being dismissed as "white male issues".>I think that's why your comparison to Killmonger is so annoying. He's not part of a group who couldn't possibly be dismissed but in fact often and historically have been.
I can see, given your evident view on race, why it's so annoying.
Let me help you with that:
Being a race doesn't mean you're suddenly acting in the interest of everyone in that race.
It's why garbage like "white male rage" is so harmful.
I can understand the sentiment, but I'm not so sure it's actually happening in any wide-spread manner.
But if it WERE the case, then the course of action for said dismissed white males would be to find common ground with other marginalized groups and come together on the concerns they share. But that's... not what I see happening. I mostly see bitterness that they should have a place among the elites and aren't getting one, and a desire to be in a place to one day dismiss others the way they were dismissed.
>>1035912>I can understand the sentiment, but I'm not so sure it's actually happening in any wide-spread manner.
I can assure you, it is.
I dare say, I think the focus so many put on race is specifically to try to stifle it.> But that's... not what I see happening.
Wow, gee wiz, I wonder if it could at all be because of being labeled 'oppressors' and 'privilaged' and being told they can't organize together while countless other groups can form as many special interest sections as they desire, while happily spamming the same sort of dismissive derisive and generally bigoted language at them that they'd despise if said about their groups. >I mostly see bitterness that they should have a place among the elites and aren't getting one, and a desire to be in a place to one day dismiss others the way they were dismissed.
I guess that'll depend on what you mean. I've certainly never met anyone with a 'desire to dismiss others the way they were dismissed'. I have met plenty who want to "make it big", but, that's definitely
not an exclusively white thing. I've heard the same from plenty a black fellow, and in college it was echoed by many asians I met as well.
It's pretty typical to want to improve your lot in life.
I don't think that's a problem.
>>1035914>being told they can't organize together while countless other groups can form as many special interest sections as they desire,
See all this sounds like the bitterness I was talking about. That's not coming together with your fellow marginalized groups. That's bitterness over the small concessions they have been afforded because they fought for them. >I have met plenty who want to "make it big"
Definitely not what I'm talking about. There's "making it big" and then there's being the 1%. And there are white males out there who feel they deserve a seat among the elites not because of anything they've done or accomplished, but because they were born white and are owed it. In their mind they have not been given what they were "promised".
>>1035916>That's bitterness over the small concessions they have been afforded because they fought for them.
I can certainly see why you think that, when you hyperfocus on the one single thing
where that applies, while ignoring the rest.
Again; It's hard to "come together" with your "fellow marginalized groups" when they label you an oppressor, privileged, and spam out the same sort of dismissive and harmful language that'd be called if used against them racist. And rightly so.
This said, I do not think it is wrong to be unhappy that there is split standards and rules.
Everyone ought to be held to the same standard, regardless of race or gender.
Creating special exceptions makes the rule unjust.>There's "making it big" and then there's being the 1%
OK, then nobody I know wants to be the "1%", nor do they feel they "deserve" a seat there. White or otherwise.>And there are white males out there who feel they deserve a seat among the elites not because of anything they've done or accomplished, but because they were born white and are owed it. In their mind they have not been given what they were "promised".
And I'm sure there are black people, asian people, arabic people, and indian people who feel the same.
Some people are disillusional.
This is not racially exclusive.
File: 1590391380313.png (30.34 KB, 200x303, 200:303, Five dollars.png) ImgOps Google
This has been going a while and gotten more heavy than "opinions on Joker", so I should probably suggest it be taken to /townhall/ again.
File: 1590404471545.png (1.37 MB, 1013x945, 1013:945, 1528167706012.png) ImgOps Google
Yup! And she has a fondness for donuts.
File: 1590434682740.png (124.66 KB, 800x900, 8:9, 2279954__safe_artist-colon….png) ImgOps Google
I know we've moved on but I guess my issue was that I couldn't take Wakanda seriously. I mean it's blatantly sci-fi Ethiopia which sure when the character was made Ethiopia was a big deal in the West but then a lot of the things they describe with their culture and neighbors sounds a lot more like West Africa. Which is fine but then they're playing by Southern African rules with distinctly Zulu aesthetics.
Don't get me wrong. The whole meta-myth aspect of the cultural blending isn't lost on me, but at some point I have to wonder if the Mongol Hoards doing a katana charge from elephant is supposed to be symbolic of unity and origins or if it's because the author thinks Asia is just one big country.
File: 1590437091263.png (13.75 KB, 345x382, 345:382, I feel the cosmos.png) ImgOps Google
>>1035936>the Mongol Hoards doing a katana charge from elephant
Sounds like the end to some crazy cross-over movie.
File: 1590449791269.png (383.09 KB, 586x1000, 293:500, 792489__safe_solo_clothes_….png) ImgOps Google
I get it! It was just a bit jarring is all. Again the visuals were stunning. It just broke my immersion.>>1035937
Probably a chinese movie.
File: 1590450507749.jpg (87.66 KB, 446x557, 446:557, wakanda_0003.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Well to answer your questions, here is where Wakanda would be if it were real. It's the blue one.
File: 1590453605729.jpg (319.48 KB, 1528x1060, 382:265, shinobu-age-chart.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1035935>vampire who's actually hundreds of years old but looks like a little girl
She can change her form depending on how much blood she drinks.
File: 1590457658033.png (51.8 KB, 236x301, 236:301, 700Sylveon_Dream.png) ImgOps Google
No, the great lakes are near Canada, not in Africa.
File: 1590458322792.jpg (15.01 KB, 640x272, 40:17, FB_IMG_1501107518127.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1036005>for no reason.
Huh? What makes you say that? Her being in little-girl form indicates that her power level is significantly lower than in her full adult form.
File: 1590459088287.png (241.86 KB, 1076x1183, 1076:1183, 1a848725aed607251dfd1d2e69….png) ImgOps Google
Anime shows there are plenty of ways to show that without adding lolicon into the mix. Like nearly every single one of the villians on Dragonball Z do that and not a single one of them is a little girl!
File: 1590465020769.jpg (493.72 KB, 1536x2048, 3:4, 1567470710050.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1036027>Like nearly every single one of the villians on Dragonball Z do that and not a single one of them is a little girl!
That was back in the era when anime girls still had noses. Now everything needs to be super-kawaii.
File: 1590465964181.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google
I enjoyed the movie. Not perfect, but they took an interesting route. So at least I wasn't bored. I recall it being a bit too long but I think that of most movies.
File: 1590466272191.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google
Should've left the movie theater then.
File: 1590467053508.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google
So you could've stopped watching at any time.
File: 1590467163865.png (81.27 KB, 398x506, 199:253, A_wtf.png) ImgOps Google
I would have wasted a dollar. I just explained that. And all my criticisms of the film would have been dismissed if I didn't finish it. Someone tried to do that even though I did finish it.
File: 1590467399864.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google
A whole dollar huh.
It's all opinion, if you decided to stop halfway through because you found it boring is just as valid an opinion as me enjoying the movie.
File: 1590467755865.png (213.84 KB, 665x1005, 133:201, answer.png) ImgOps Google
But only one of us can be right! The movie can't exist in a Schrodinger's Cat state of being both boring and not boring!
File: 1590468147846.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google
This conversation is boring me. I'm going to leave it, seeing that it's not interesting. Now instead of wasting time discussing differing opinions and tastes of two different people I get to sleep and not do that thing that would not interest me. Sure is great being able to leave things I'm not actively enjoying. Would surely suck to force myself to do something that I would find to be a chore because someone else I have no emotional or physical connection to might have the flimsiest justification for how my opinion may or may not be valid.
File: 1590470599450.jpg (53.46 KB, 729x1095, 243:365, rin_tezuka_by_wolfifi-d9aq….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Partly the gamer memes, partially the appropriation by edgelords.
File: 1590471545648.png (316.53 KB, 865x1154, 865:1154, 1245a180d9e49eb64aef7c94ab….png) ImgOps Google
Well Tyler Durden was the result of the the unnamed narrator's repressing his homosexuality and societal expectations of men in general. So it's about the dangers of hyper masculinity. Anyone who looks at Tyler and thinks that's what they want to be is missing the point. Yeah, he does look like what you want to be, but wanting to be that is the problem.
I would argue that a big part of the point that Fight Club was trying to make was highly dependent on Tyler being a highly charismatic character. Basically he's a symbol of the tempation
of hyper masculinity, being psychologically unrealistic in how unbounded, independent and "free" the character is. Basically what makes hypermasculinity appealing.
And of course, that charismatic personality and rather extreme self confidence in real life to the point of rather extreme narcissism is characteristic of the kind of people cults or cult-like organizations form around. Hence the fight club eventually becoming a proto-facist cult.
Also, Rick Sanchez is not an insane character, he's just a phony nihilist. The whole point with Rick is that he's lying to himself about how much he actually cares about people other than himself. Embracing this nihilistic persona
that often slips off in situations where he can't deny his depression.
File: 1590596199647.png (211.9 KB, 425x422, 425:422, ah erh.png) ImgOps Google
Heh, Bojack Horseman had commentary on something like that in the show.
Probably applies to Bokjack as well.
Bojack is a whole lot more overt in framing Bojack as basically being in the wrong all the time. And making it clear that most of his problems are his own fault.
For that reason, while a lot of fans might relate to his emotional struggles (he is actually a very realistic depiction of a person with a major depressive disorder with elements of complex post traumatic stress disorder), almost no fans actually idolize him or deny that a lot of his suffering is fair considering how many people he hurts with his own self-loathing and self-destructive behavior. It's one of the reasons the show is both cathartic and painful to watch.
File: 1590597206714.png (164.22 KB, 376x400, 47:50, huh 2.png) ImgOps Google
Well, I certainly felt bad for him.
While I could totally acknowledge he's not a character to look up to, there were times where you saw him struggle with his issues and see him try to be better.
It was a very emotional series.
Oh, I'm also thinking of Doctor House. Who got around being an asshole most of the time, but in the end I also don't know if the show could effectively treat him as a deeply flawed character. I suppose, yes?
I don't disagree, he's definitely a character designed to make hyper-masculinity look appealing. But I think the fact that men want to be that in the first place is also an issue.>>1036241
I also wouldn't disagree. But the thing about Rick is that he uses his high intelligence to justify his attitudes towards other people. I've met people like this in real life. They think being smart gives them carte blache to treat other people like garbage and act superior.
The difference is that House is framed as essentially always being correct in the end, which, like with Rick Sanchez, seems to signal that that ultimately gives moral license to Rick/House to just be an asshole.
Bojack never gets that moral license. The primary conflict driving the plot of Bojack as a series is "character vs themselves") rather than situations where the main characters has to solve any problem with high stakes (like solving medical mysteries or saving the multiverse). All plots in Bojack ultimately revolve around Bojack's striving to revive his career, and how he's ultimately his own greatest obstacle to that end, hence the shows focus on his internal conflicts.
He's relatable because he's understandable and a lot of people can relate to characters with major depressive disorder. The show makes it clear his choices are frequently the wrong choice and he's never let off the hook by the writers, but we understand how he got there and how anyone could end up like that if they had as emotionally dysfunctional family and emotional cruel parents who used him as an outlet for all their regrets about their own shitty life decisions.
>>1036263>I don't disagree, he's definitely a character designed to make hyper-masculinity look appealing. But I think the fact that men want to be that in the first place is also an issue.
Sure, I think Chuck Palahniuk underestimated the tendency towards self-serving interpretations. Tyler Durden is so charismatic and likeable to these people that they can easily just declare the movie "wrong" and basically turn it off before they get to the end and Tyler has ruined a lot of lives. >>1036263>I also wouldn't disagree. But the thing about Rick is that he uses his high intelligence to justify his attitudes towards other people. I've met people like this in real life. They think being smart gives them carte blache to treat other people like garbage and act superior.
Yes, Rick's personality is not unrealistic. He certainly has a penchent for narcissism as overcompensation for a depression fueled self-loathing. He's got a bad personality and the fact that he is always right means he's never going to have a truly humbling moment. But, he's frequently
in the wrong about other people, not because he can't empathize with others, but because it hurts him too much so he contrives reasons to block his own empathy, and of course that's when he's revealed to be a hypocritical nihilist actively suppressing and denying the reality that he actually does
care about his family despite all this.
I agree that the show undermines itself (at least in the first two seasons) with how it frames everything in a contradictory way and it makes me wonder if the fans would have been as enthusiastic if the show does what it did in season three and make the subtext just the text in tge Pickle Rick episode where a therapist basically explicitly states and describes Rick's general reluctance to connect with (or admit emotional connection) as a criticism of the character. So of course, while it's a favorite "ego trip" sort of episode, a lot of fans ignore the ending where the therapist overtly criticizes Rick for using adventures to avoid relationship issues with his family.
I'm not really sure how anyone watch "Fight Club" and thought Tyler Durden was some sort of role model on how to be. He's selfish, narcissistic, violent, manipulative and clearly insane. He didn't make hypermasculinity look good to me. To me, he was a mirror held up to the ugliest parts of masculinity and a message of what NOT to be.
I've always seen Rick's nihilism as kind of showing the inherent flaw in that type of nihilism (which, coincidentally is shared by most versions of the Joker). In the realization that life is inherently meaningless, nothing happens on purpose, bad stuff happens for no reason, good stuff happens for no reason and that ultimately all of it won't matter we are left with two choices. The Joker "fuck everything" route where we cut ourselves off from caring about anything or the Batman "no, fuck that" route where we choose our own meaning and care very much about that thing. Rick has embraced the "fuck everything" route but... it hasn't made him any happier or improved his life. In fact, it appears to make him miserable. But I don't like how the show frames that stance as being the ONLY stance you can take if you are intelligent. Like "fuck everything" is the ultimate conclusion all "really" intelligent people come to and the misery that apparently comes with it is just the burden of the smart. I think that's kinda bullshit.
Yeah, sometimes I suspect if Pickle Rick was written that way intentionally. Most of the episode is meme-fodder with Rick doing his whole God-like science wizard thing and then in the last bit of the episode he gets completely dressed down and called out for using... all of that to avoid connecting with anyone. So if you aren't very smart, it's easy for you to completely miss the point and be like "Well that was hilarious and awesome! But why was that therapist being such a bitch to Rick at the end?" I know that the "You have to be smart to get Rick and Morty" thing or whatever it is is a meme or a joke now, but really it does seem like a lot of the show does go over a lot of it's own fan's heads.
File: 1590603034942.png (1.35 MB, 1568x1691, 1568:1691, ea241db.png) ImgOps Google
>>1036277>>1036277>I'm not really sure how anyone watch "Fight Club" and thought Tyler Durden was some sort of role model on how to be. He's selfish, narcissistic, violent, manipulative and clearly insane. He didn't make hypermasculinity look good to me. To me, he was a mirror held up to the ugliest parts of masculinity and a message of what NOT to be.
Narcissism is a sufficient explanation for that self-serving interpretation.
I mean, narcissism is self-justifying to the point most narcissist will insist their narcissism is actually a great thing so ...
Reasoning can be biased to get someone to emotionally pleasing or ego boosting conclusions, even if one could
know better, it ultimately doesn't mean much if the person doesn't have a tolerance for information that makes them feel bad. >In the realization that life is inherently meaningless, nothing happens on purpose, bad stuff happens for no reason, good stuff happens for no reason and that ultimately all of it won't matter we are left with two choices. The Joker "fuck everything" route where we cut ourselves off from caring about anything or the Batman "no, fuck that" route where we choose our own meaning and care very much about that thing.
Fun fact, you just described the fundamental difference between nihilism and existentialism.
Also fun fact: Dan Harmon, the cocreator of Rick and Morty is an existentialist, and existentialist themes pervade his previous show, Community.
Also also fun fact: Raphael Bob Waksberg, the creator of Bojack Horseman, is also an existentialist and that show is also an exploration of existentialist themes as well. >In fact, it appears to make him miserable. But I don't like how the show frames that stance as being the ONLY stance you can take if you are intelligent.
I don't think that was the intention with how it's framed nor do I think that is what it's implying when a lot of the text so often contradicts that. I think it takes a deliberate rolling of the eyes at the text influenced by narcissism.
Honestly, I think show writers can get a little egocentric and oftentimes can't imagine, or severely underestimate, how someone could interpret their work in such self-serving ways. >Yeah, sometimes I suspect if Pickle Rick was written that way intentionally.
I don't think you need to be suspicious, I think that the writers are pretty transparent
with their intentions by fact that it was written that way at all. There is basically no subtext at all, the therapist directly lays out the flaw that defines Rick's fundamental "cgaracter vs themselves" conflict of the show.
He's "living in bad faith" as existentialist like Sartre would say. >So if you aren't very smart, it's easy for you to completely miss the point and be like "Well that was hilarious and awesome! But why was that therapist being such a bitch to Rick at the end?" I know that the "You have to be smart to get Rick and Morty" thing or whatever it is is a meme or a joke now, but really it does seem like a lot of the show does go over a lot of it's own fan's heads.
I don't think that the show really
goes over the heads of fans that much, it's just that the framing appeals to narcissism. So narcissistic people will value it for that reason and will interpret it in a way that appeals to that narcissism.
I mean, simply having intellectual capabilities doesn't guarantee a person will have the emotional discipline to use it. Or the tolerance for ego-threatening humility, something also required to be an intellectualy responsible person.
>>1036280>Fun fact, you just described the fundamental difference between nihilism and existentialism.
Which one, Batman or the Joker?>simply having intellectual capabilities doesn't guarantee a person will have the emotional discipline to use it.
I've heard that people have both an intellegence quota (IQ) and an emotional quota (EQ). I've always found that idea fascinating, although I don't know much about it.
>>1036284>>1036284>Which one, Batman or the Joker?
You described Batman as an existentialist. >>1036284>I've heard that people have both an intellegence quota (IQ) and an emotional quota (EQ). I've always found that idea fascinating, although I don't know much about it.
While those are both quantifiable measures, having a high EQ doesn't guarantee that someone is always using it.
The discipline to not give into emotionally self-satisfying or ego validating interpretations of the facts is ultimately a matter of willpower
rather than a matter of emotional intelligence.
Hence the reasons intellectual disciplines are called disciplines
>>1036287>You described Batman as an existentialist.
I'm not sure the character would consider himself to be one, but it does seem to describe his outlook.>The discipline to not give into emotionally self-satisfying or ego validating interpretations of the facts is ultimately a matter of willpower rather than a matter of emotional intelligence.
If it's a choice of willpower, why are some people better at it than others?
Hey Manley, you should totally check out some of Nando v Movies stuff, he's really smart about movie writing and comics. He just today made a video on Joker! I never saw the movie though, so I'm curious what you'd think of the video.
File: 1590970224429.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google
>>1036289>If it's a choice of willpower, why are some people better at it than others?
I mean...some people are better at willpower than others.
Well, I watched it.
Well, I think comparing Joker's situation to that of black people in the 1970s is kind of an issue and not exactly the same, but the rest of the video I completely agree with.
Sympathy is not the same as empathy, and I while I get that some people sympathized with the Joker (I did not), the movie doesn't' really ever give us any reason to empathize with him, and that could have been fixed. if it would have resulted in a better movie is impossible to say, but I would have welcomed the change. Make his plight and issues more clear and make us want to see him succeed, atleast at first, even if we don't agree with his methods. In the movie we got, we have a character who it's impossible to care about or root for.
File: 1590979855285.jpg (81.61 KB, 650x365, 130:73, Green-Lantern-650x365.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1037301> some people are better at willpower than others.
But seriously, is that true? I always figured people had the same amount of willpower, and that other people just don't use it.
I wonder if it'll lead you to check out that Dolemite film ;)>>1037301>>1037307
What even IS willpower really?
Oh I might! It definitely sounds interesting. How blaxploitation movies got made is often a more interesting story than the movies it produced.
Willpower is "the control exerted to do something or restrain impulses."
Basically, it's how well you can make yourself do something or make yourself NOT do something.
I'd ask more about willpower, but I have a feeling it'll quickly boil down to the question of the existence of free will.
But I'm glad you liked the video, or at least agreed with a lot. I highly recommend checking out more of that guy's work, this was honestly one of his weaker videos in comparison!
No one was disputing free will, tho.
I've seen a few of his videos. I don't always agree with his re-writes, but I do think his videos are good.
File: 1590982684800.png (317.65 KB, 699x768, 233:256, 8978987978978.png) ImgOps Google
never seen any of these movies
from that sound of it
they dont sound good anyway
File: 1590988308455.jpg (142.57 KB, 569x802, 569:802, cia.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Did you see The Dark Knight Rises
? It is the best Batman film ever!>>1037323
What is free will? A 'strong' conception of free will (in the sense that "willpower does not require free will" is sensible) never made sense to me.
File: 1590988400586.png (196.58 KB, 363x495, 11:15, 876867978987.png) ImgOps Google
i only seen the memes but i gotta see at some point lol
that whole scene makes me laugh to this day
File: 1590988608254.png (403.95 KB, 478x747, 478:747, 543543534768888.png) ImgOps Google
"nobody cared who i was until i wore the mask."
2020 in general
No, it wasn't. and the Bane meme was never funny!>>1037365
You really don't need to watch it. it's the weakest of the Nolan trilogy and it's version of Bane is an insult to the character. >>1037368
Yes, even I quote that stupid movie when I wear my mask. Atleast it gave us that.
File: 1590989411319.png (274.44 KB, 434x739, 434:739, 6546458778769.png) ImgOps Google
i think the reason why people made it a meme was because how terrible nolans writing was in the airplane scene
could be wrong though
>>1037365>that whole scene makes me laugh to this day
It's the best part of the movie!>>1037382
That's right! And of course the ambiguous "big guy... for you"!
It's not ambiguous!
CIA Guy says "If I took that mask off, would you die?"
Bane responds "It would be extremely painful."
CIA guy, assuming he meant it would cause Bane pain responds "You're a big guy." Stating he believes Bane is tough enough to endure that pain.
Bane responds "...for you." finishing his earlier statement and clarifying that removing his mask would be painful for CIA guy not for himself, because Bane would hurt him if he tried to remove his mask.
Anyone who doesn't get this line of dialog is just acting stupid!
File: 1590989776740.jpg (162.86 KB, 624x352, 39:22, Wreckage_brother_door.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>They expect one of us in the Wreckage Brother
What a foreboding name! Like, who would name their aircraft "Wreckage Brother" lol
File: 1590989825497.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google
This is asinine.
File: 1590989908330.png (469.45 KB, 534x749, 534:749, 65465476587698.png) ImgOps Google
it's almost have memorized word for word too
yeah, i figured as much
guess people just had fun with it
This what happens when idiots get to watch scenes of movies before the movie is out.>>1037396
But it ISN'T fun!
File: 1590990507889.png (685.39 KB, 816x894, 136:149, 435476768865.png) ImgOps Google
fair enough, i guess
I enjoyed the movie, both ironically and unironically. I might be kinda biased though because parts of it were filmed in the city where I live.https://youtu.be/o9Enk_Xhc7Q?t=43
File: 1590990789526.png (373.49 KB, 510x739, 510:739, 53543547676.png) ImgOps Google
i will take your word for it
i dont watch much movies anyway