IGN's glowing review of Joker
Basically, no one thought a movie studio would make a serious, Oscar-bait movie about a comic book character. They (and I) simply thought the trailers were being intentionally misleading as a sort of Joker meta-joke about why anyone would make such a movie about the Joker, of all people. Like... those trailers? Those are the kind of thing the Joker would put out himself if the movie was just 105 minutes of him farting.I've seen it a lot, but why is everyone saying the trailers are bait and switch? What's the evidence for that? I can't think of any parallel cases to go on, and I certainly know nothing about the movie beyond the trailers at this point.
Stuff like this happens all the time in the comic books. The honest answer is that early Golden Age writers didn't think about this stuff. The "canon" answer is that Billy's powers are magic and thus can do stuff like that because he thinks that how it should work. Superman's excuse is "tactial telekinesis instead of super strength" which is a way, WAY dumber handwave than "it's magic".Shazam! was one of the better ones, but the pacing was really bad. I mean all over the place. It would rush through parts that were important and drag through boring stuff. Plus it had some scenes that just broke immersion for me. For example, I can buy flight. I can even buy catching a bus. But I can't buy catching a bus falling 50' ... by its glass windshield. I like Levy, and he was fun, though, so that kind of balanced it out. Movie Sivana had a bit of a point, though. Shazam (the wizard) was kind of an asshole to him.
It's shockingly tone deaf.I have no interest in a movie in which we're supposed to feel sympathy for a disturbed loner incel who decides that mass murder is the way he's going to improve his life. Fuck the Joker. I hope everyone involved in the movie winds up with overly chatty Uber drivers for the rest of their lives.
I agree. Hasn't that been a trend for Disney movies? Look at Maleficent. That movie is almost an identical premise to the Joker.I mean, villain transformations are often portrayed as positive for the villain. Doesn't seem particularly unique to this movie. It reminds me of what Phillip K Dick said about A Scanner Darkly. He portrayed drugs as pleasurable because they are. People wouldn't do them if they weren't. A person wouldn't turn to what the world perceives as evil if there wasn't a payoff for them.
Not to mention that Maleficent justifiably felt snubbed by the king in the original story? You don't just... not invite fae royalty to a party and the king would have known better, whether she was unseelie or not. Yes, he'd be "inviting disaster" into his court, but it's still better than offending the god damn dark fairy who can curse your daughter.If there is an overwhelming problem in the USA with fairie witches comitting mass murder as twisted revenge I haven't heard about it.
At least Walter White can admit that, in the end, the only reason it all went so far is because he liked and how it made him feel. He has no illusions about being a hero, he did it for himself.There are people who think Walter White is the good guy in Breaking Bad, but that doesn't make it bad.
I think a majority of this has to do with the person portraying Joker, or the director's vision.The Joker is mostly a crime boss and terrorist portrayed as pretty muhc "For the Lulz" or "Chaos! We must break down society and revert to a natural state of anarchy!" or just plain demented/crazy.
I get what you're saying--it's like why the trapped helicopter shot was deleted from the Spider-Man movie.If there is an overwhelming problem in the USA with fairie witches comitting mass murder as twisted revenge I haven't heard about it.
I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's not a good time for it right now to be released.There are people who think Walter White is the good guy in Breaking Bad, but that doesn't make it bad.
It's a prime example of Horseshoe Theory on how people at the ends want to "Pull Their Hair, Shriek Loudly and Gnash Their Teeth" on the next controversial thing and how it's bad/good for/against them.I love how we have argued for pages about what the movie portrays but no one has seen it.
Vic Mackey from 'The Shield' is another prime example. Some folks need to seek outrage/offense.I mean, Breaking Bad makes it very clear that Walter is not good, and in fact, it's an examination of just how his choices destroy his life and those of the people around him. No one is better off at the end of the story than the start. A shitload of people are dead - some good, quite a few bad, some innocent. Families are destroyed. Lives ruined. The fact that the story remains compelling and that you can still empathize with Walter is a testimonial to Bryan Cranston's incredible acting and the magnificent writing behind the scenes.
And Maleficent wasn't the same at all. She was betrayed by a friend who used that to take power, and her "revenge" was... being a good adoptive parent in absentia to her enemy's daughter, teaching her of the faerie realm and the moors and protecting her. She regretted the curse she'd uttered in anger after not only being betrayed and maimed, but then insulted on top of it. She was also able to undo the curse and bring peace to the realm.
Which, you might find, is different than indulging in mass murder for the giggles.
The point of Maleficent is that she was portrayed as a villain because it was convenient for the people in power, but she wasn't.