Posted on 10/24/2019 11:07:42 AM PDT by C19fan
Maybe they figured he’d be deader
Then I take it, you’ve seen “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy”? Of which Joker is a dumbed down mash up of.
Personally, I would rate it PG-13.
You don’t get to show point blank pistol shots to the head with blood spattering on the wall behind in PG-13 films.
“I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m sick of comic-book movies.”
I’m not sick of them yet. I’ve enjoyed all the MCU movies I’ve seen but I’ll be in no hurry to watch the Phase 4 movies that promise to be female and gay-centric. Hopefully those films will lose money and Kevin Feige comes to his senses.
Good for Joaquin.
Honestly, this makes me very happy, I have not seen it yet, but I will.
Long live good actors who act and don’t preach to the point that I want to throw up!
From True Grit, a PG-13 movie.
And there’s also this scene...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=OQuPkquz7R0
There’s more.
Well I stand corrected but that head shot is more stylized than Joker’s.
I agree.
The violence in Joker is more personal and visceral. Especially when he kills the fellow clown in revenge, in his own apartment. I found that far more shocking and affecting. The production and acting causes you to experience the fear, and violent outburst of rage.
But it is not more violent than most PG-13 fare.
Right, the apartment scene is very visceral even though the camera manages to keep the absolute brunt of it out of frame. It feels like it’s happening right there next you and you can imagine what it must look like. This is why Joker is R rated while True Grit isn’t — because intensity and realism matter. In True Grit the headshot is stylized and quick. In Joker there’s more splatter, more realism, and the camera lingers longer on the aftermath. Quantifying violence is kind of like defining pornography: hard to pin down but you know it when you see it. To me it’s more or less self evident that the violence in Joker is the R rated kind.
bookmark
Someone told me the "twist" ending is we see Bruce Wayne's parents get killed in the final scene (I have zero interest in seeing that, given that we've seen that done on film about 87 times before), thus setting the stage for Bruce to become "Batman" one day and avenge their deaths. DUM! DUM! DUM! Roll credits.
Guess they were lying and there is "literally zero super hero/super villain stuff going on", huh?
Neither has made a dime off this house.
Based on interviews I’ve read, the director intentionally utilized the Joker tie-in in order to actually get the movie produced, because otherwise the dramatic character study he wanted to tell wouldn’t have been green-lit.
And I recently heard a couple kids in the street saying they plan to see it.
I saw it for the first time today. I concur with you - a very good and very intelligent movie
the movie isn’t comic book. The character may be from Batman, but the story here and the character here is in the same line as Taxi Driver. A gritty, realistic movie of how we as society fail people and how governments destroy people
See.
I knew the two of us could agree on at least one thing, Cronos. :)
And, probably most other things as well...
I guess it is the nature of internet conversations along with the society we live in that we are very very quick to find disagreements.
Take care FRiend,
Euro.
I remember reading that 80% of human communication is non-verbal (so physical cues) and another 10% is tone and pace of voice.
So an internet “conversation” is severely lacking by default :)
At the end we act like two people sending messages by pigeon from Beijing to Buenos Aires in the 1600s - so a lot is lost in translation.
Even more so, I work in BI/AI and the concerning thing about my field is that we are polarising conversations - we track and see how people react and can predict their purchasing strategy based on dozens of data points. But this is also used in Facebook and google and SELF-done here on Freerepublic and Huffpost (stopped going there after they went bad even for commie posts! like Dan Brown writing bad) - meaning talking shops. Everyone agrees on everything or else they get ostracised.
I think that’s scary - we don’t want groupthink. We want to disagree on little things — but remembering that we do have a lot of other things in common.
That is interesting.
I also work with AI, but in an academic setting and probably at a lower level that you. But, I work with it in the context of cognitive linguistics and natural language processing - so I have been studying a lot of semiotics and have come over that 80/20 rule.... (which btw seems to be a recurring pattern in a lot of processes) with regards to communication.
That information about 80/20 non-verbal versus verbal is a misinterpretation of one study to the utter frustration of the academic that conducted it. I think he has even set up an entire website to explain it. Because it is rather funny. That 80/20 is being taught in English departments the world over, in business schools and probably in militaries too. So is this world. It can be a funny place.
Anyhow, the so called 80/20 study showed that 80 percent of “EMOTION” conveyed came from non-verbal cues - and I would guess most likely things like tone of voice. You cannot explain how to build a nuclear bomb without words and diagrams just yet :)
Also, about emotion... I get emotional over Brexit and the EU because seeing what has happened to my own country certainly makes me emotional. My little sister raped by refugees...
So too - about having been lied to about the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction and many other things. There is a lot of lies and agendas out there for sure.
As far as your professional work? That is something I probably will want to talk to you about if you would be willing, though I am sure you have signed your NDA’s...
In an earlier life, I did work for a major American consulting outfit on customer relationship management which involved much of the same things I suppose, but with much much cruder technology (but, got to work with Darpa).
Anyhow, about free speech versus groupthink, compelled speech and banned speech - that is one of the reasons I vehemently oppose the EU because they seem to be one of the leading Global players in quashing dissenting voices.
To bring it back full circle? I wrote what I wrote and wanted this conversation because for once in a long while a Hollywood movie made me reflect about society and our relationship with each others.
We should all be a bit nicer to each others, perhaps especially with those we disagree with.
Cheers mate,
Euro.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.