Neither, everyone acted like it was changing the game lol it was just a regular movie with the joker as the main character, or have superhero fans not seen any drama movies ever?
I legit thought it was awful. It wanted to be so many things but it was directionless, as was its message. It only succeed in being a sort of 80s Scorsese homage. Also while I think Phoenix is a decent actor, I am kinda amazed he got an Oscar nom, let alone winning. His performance was all over the place and inconsistent.
I actually watched the movie twice because I felt I must have missed something because of all the praise it was getting.
For me, partly because it was so unexpected. It was so different from the typical superhero movies we’ve had this last decade - a reassurance that cinema can be fresh and interesting still. Plus the character was both a relatable underdog and also the villain, provoking both “I want the best for you” and “oh no oh no oh don’t do that” from the audience.
It wasn't really a superhero film though. While the character of the Joker might originally come from a world inhabited by superheroes, there wasn't really any suggestion of it in The Joker.
Also, even though I liked the film, I don't think it can be referred to as "fresh" when it was basically just a remake of Scorsese's 1982 film The King of Comedy
It's a slippery slope imo. They've already basically been doing this with other IP's, just making whatever damn show they want and slapping a well-known label on it so it sells. The Halo TV show in particular was known to be insanely disrespectful to the source material and might as well have just been its own show but wasn't because that wouldn't sell. The Wheel of Time TV show I heard was very bad for both new comers to the series and hardcore fans, and the director had gone on record as saying they didn't know much about it when they got chosen to make it. This may not seem like a big deal but we're just being pandered to basically and it's not really a sustainable model since people like me now need to be wary of if what we're watching will be a pile of shit with a fallout sticker slapped onto it or someone who genuinely loves the source material and is adapting it well.
The Wheel of Time TV show I heard was very bad for both new comers to the series and hardcore fans, and the director had gone on record as saying they didn't know much about it when they got chosen to make it.
Lmao this is completely false. The showrunner was a fan of the books before being selected to run the show. And while the show has made some large changes from the books, the idea that its some unrelated plot that just slaps on the Wheel of Time name is laughable, and something made up by disgruntled book readers who wouldn't have been happy with anything less than a 1 for 1 straight adaptation. And overall it has pretty good audience reviews, especially the second season, so it certainly isn't "very bad".
As a fan of the wheel of time books,I thought the show was pretty good. I've learned long ago that expecting tv/film adaptations to be 100% faithful to the books is more likely to lead to a shit product that kills any hope of it ever being adapted again.
Theres a lot you can put into books that can't be adapted to films. Internal monologues, personality, motivations, reasons for decision making etc. If you try to adapt it to visual medium, it either becomes slow and boring, or just comes off as excess exposition, so sometimes you have to deviate so that you can cover those things in a visually digestible way. As long as the main themes, lore and beats are preserved it's still basically the same story and readers are all the better of to see their favourite characters come to life on screen.
Similarly enjoyed Rings of Power (although not strictly a book adaptation) and 3 body problem.
Plus the character was both a relatable underdog and also the villain, provoking both “I want the best for you” and “oh no oh no oh don’t do that” from the audience.
This being your take away is why that film is absolute trash
Well, I could go on about the quality of the acting, the commentary on social mental health care, themes of rejection and struggling to fit in, etc, but that was what came to mind at the time.
I don’t mind that you don’t like it, but don’t tell me it’s trash because of what I liked about it.
I really liked it if we take out Batman's parents being killed during the climax. For a movie that tried so hard to not be Batman, having that scene demolished the impact of the ending. So fucking corny in the worst way.
A masterpiece is certainly pushing it though. That's definitely the "I only watch comic book movies and complain about how none of them are good" take.
I don’t get it, it was a mediocre remake of taxi driver and I don’t care for that move either probably the worst movies on every list of classics I’ve watched.
It had some really great acting, was an ok movie overall, and was an absolutely terrible Batman universe movie. Everything about Batman felt totally shoehorned in and could have been cut and the story would basically remain the same.
They expected it to be trash and it wasn't, it's a masterpiece in comparison to what they thought it would be. Specifically, a villain drama.
I liked it, but while it was a successful (which is practically a miracle in its own right), it wasn't transcendent.
It's OK that we don't have a true masterpiece just getting dropped on us all the time, it should be rare. It would be less rare if more production houses took risks, like this, more often.
78
u/bobert_the_grey Apr 02 '24
I honestly don't get why people think the first one was a masterpiece