Joker and the death of cinema

You want to watch a western ? nevermind, here is Logan a "western". Wanna watch a buddy comedy ? nevermind, here is Venom a "buddy comedy". We are in an age of demented corporate filmmaking where studios are making safe movies that are masquerading as "original" movies. Warner bros is at the forefront of that disgusting movement. All studios want to make money. But warner bros want both awards and money. Thats a huge problem because it is encroaching on independent/original film territory.

The reason why this practise is dangerous if it happens often is because comic book movies give studios financial cushion to take risks. But they are still taking risks based on popular IP. So it can never be an original idea or the movie never has to rest completely on the shoulders of the director. He can pull from comic books or in the case of joker from taxi driver or king of comedy. Studios will spend money marketing the movie in film festivals even before the movie is released because they know that people are gonna show up to watch a comic book movie once it is out. That right there robs the movie of artistic merit. It is one thing creating a brand for yourself based on your original content but its something else once you start using a popular IP.

During the awards season they twist and turn the intentions to make it seem like an awards movie but in reality it's just a comic book just like any other. Warner bros did the same with A star is born. Its a fricking remake but the studio marketed it like an original movie and it was disgusting.

One of the most interesting/pathetic marketing strategy studios are following right now is that...controversy is good business for branded IP. If audience made up their mind to watch a movie then they will watch it at any cost atleast once. But for original movies controversy is financially risky. So,studios try to make movies a little provocatively, especially the ones based on branded IP so that they can claim that they made risky movies but it is all hiding the real thing and that is - "it is based on a comic book character that they know will make a certain amount money at the very least".

I wouldn't say Joker is the death of cinema. It looks a lot better than Captain Marvel for example.

atleast captain marvel is upfront about it being a comic book movie but joker is tricking you into thinking something it is not.

Oh okay, how is it tricking us exactly?

It's not a movie?

I'd argue this is all rooted in the percieved success of Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale especially pulled the wool over all our eyes pretending a comic book character could be dramatic. Obviously this was done for the money, boosting Bale's career status as a blockbuster franchise name. So obviously a trick to promote itself other than an animated child's coloring book. Bale is so transparent.

Nice try baiting me...now..do you have anything worth saying ?

True comic book fans (a.k.a. "geeks") knew comic book superheroes could be dramatic long before Nolan. In fact Nolan's Batman Begins was based mostly on a specific comic book series (Batman Year One) that took a serious approach to the character.

In essence, Nolan was following a trend and taking the next logical step of converting serious comics to film.

Batman has been treated seriously in comics for decades, probably because he is a "realistic" character (something that is not beyond the realm of possibility: he's not an alien, he has no super powers, but he is a guy who has lots of money to buy anything he needs and the motivation to obsessive behavior due to the childhood trauma of watching his parents be murdered).

It's a tough one. On the one hand, people have been trying to make the case that comics are capable of doing more than providing juvenile entertainment for decades on end so the idea that someone could make comic book movies that could compete with "real" movies is arguably an ideal that's worth aspiring to - as long as the movie itself is good, what difference does it really make if it came from a comic book? You could even argue that the inverse happened with Alan Moore adaptations like V For Vendetta or Watchmen where elaborate and thematically complicated works of fiction were compromised in order to better fit with the prevailing concept that superhero=action.

On the other hand, no, it doesn't help if the best that superhero movies can do to achieve legitimacy is to appropriate the modes of other movies without providing sufficient variation from either their source or their inspiration to make for something genuinely new (even The Dark Knight could be shrugged off as Heat with superheroes). It's like when Captain America: The Winter Soldier was being held up as one of the best Marvel/superhero movies because of how its plot echoed those of 1970s conspiracy thrillers and yet that still didn't transcend its status as a superhero movie because of how it still had to go through those particular motions. Joker seems like it might avoid that by being a self-contained work with no greater connections to the DCEU, but it has the same problem in that its influences are really obvious so there's naturally the question of whether or not it can really do that much to rise above them and exist as its own thing.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Its tricking us because something happens when an original idea is being made into a movie that doesn't happen with a comic book movie. A lot rests on the shoulders of the director and he has to create each and every element of the movie on his own and still there is that doubt of whether audience are gonna like it or not. That is not present with a comic book movie because you know what audience like about the character and how they will receive it. Especially after logan and deadpool. So all you gotta do is convince audience that a journey by their beloved character is not bad. Moreover the inherent lack of financial risks makes it all seem commercially motivated with passable artistic merit.

How exactly is this the death of cinema?

I typed it in your quote. Nothing less baity than your OP, and equally tenuous. Is this thread meant for discussion or to simply tell us all how you feel?

fiction is a description of imaginary events and the people in them
is a world created by our creativity based on curiosity and imagination
i like fiction because it is the exponentiation of solitary imagination
people conscientiously or not find it ridiculous because it's not real
everyone likes fiction, since we saw the ocean and looked at the stars

superheros are the exponentiation of a human in a world we consider real
i don't know if this is true for all of them, but at least the most famous ones
they're created to makes us fell better about our existence, like god i believe
now, you want people to face a reality? you want more visibility to the indies?
why, exactly? they're as valid as superheroes movies based on comic books
why do we write, paint, make songs, art in general? is for the same outcome

ynwtf: With aronisred, it's usually the latter.

In any case, I'm guessing the difference is that Batman Begins ultimately doesn't pretend it's anything more than a superhero movie, whereas there's something a little pretentious over claiming that Logan is a Western just because it features a lot of Western tropes and explicitly references classic Westerns like Shane or The Searchers. It's like when people described Get Out as a "social thriller" instead of a horror movie because of how horror is seen is a "lesser" genre and Get Out was so good it transcended a supposedly inferior genre.

because superhero movies are becoming a one stop shop for all kinds of movies to the point that audience don't want to watch any other kind of movie because they are getting all their westerns, space movies , buddy comedies in the form of superhero movies. This is how market saturation looks like.

Superhero should be it's own genre, bro!

Should it?

Who's to say that one genre can't pour over into another if done in a creative way?

What if someone made a 100% horror movie (people being picked off one by one by some malevolent force) but set it aboard a space ship in the future making it a sci-fi?

Mystery Men was a superhero film, but was 100% comedy and worked well as such.

The Incredibles was a superhero film, but was also a Disney-like kid's animation about a family, filled with fun and humor.

i really don't know what you're talking about
joker is not designed to be a blockbuster
it had a 49 million euros budget
suicide squad for instance had 156 million euros
the director priority is obviously the narrative
phoenix lost 23kg for this character
it had a 8 minutes standing ovation in venice
i think you're just criticizing for criticizing
just see the movie like everyone else...

Weeeeeell, technically Joker isn't super or a hero. So. I mean, there's that argument.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

I guess since he's part of the super-hero realm, anything with him in it would likewise be considered within the super-hero realm. We could generalize and say "comic-based movie" which would be accurate (but then we'd have to include everything from Little Abner to Flash Gordon to Popeye!)

Technically he's a super villain (which itself could be considered a misnomer as he has no "super" powers like some other super villains, which would make him just a "villain," but then that would mean his arch nemesis is not a "super" hero either, but just a "hero." However, the scale & depth of the Joker's crimes are so grand that in that sense he is a "super" villain.)

Oy, I'm making my head hurt.