fantastic_four

I'm not sure when the major press outlets started a policy of not releasing the names of mass killers, but I became aware of it after the New Zealand mosque shootings and their prime minister appealed to the press to stop using their identities to dissuade copycat killers. I'm not sure her appeal is what started it, but it's definitely very new because the largest news sources were using killer names as recently as two years ago.

I'm seeing it today around 3.

It's the exponential increase in mass killings as mass media has proliferated that's doing 1000x more of that stigmatization than any film or its critics ever will, and the critical response to this film is entirely tied to that rise. If we think of what goes into a killer as a bucket filled with water, I believe you're saying that violent media isn't what filled the bucket. So how much of the water can it be responsible for? A drop? A cup? Or are you suggesting that media just isn't capable of influencing anyone about anything? Do words and images just bounce off of all humans and never sink in at all? I'm a libertarian so I'd never suggest anyone not do anything they want that doesn't hurt someone else. I'm also fascinated with crime and serial killers in particular, so movies like Joker are entirely my bag. While I emphatically agree that violent media isn't responsible for how an individual develops into a killer, I also don't get the polar opposite perspective that they have NO effect on an individual. We all wouldn't love movies so much if they didn't affect us. I still REALLY want to hear Scorsese's opinion on all of this. After he made Taxi Driver and John Hinckley shot Reagan after the film intertwined itself into his schizophrenic delusions he considered getting out of filmmaking for over a year due to the impact the film had on Hinckley, but obviously he had a change of heart. Which is lucky, because Goodfellas probably wouldn't have been half as good as it was if his experience with Hinckley would have caused him to avoid including the more violent parts of that film.

A lot of the opinions on this subject are polarized, but yours are more nuanced. Yet I'm still unclear--are you saying that a film (or any other work of media) can have an impact on a person, or that it can't? I don't really care how much this film, or a Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Rob Zombie film, glorifies violence, it should still be made. But to say that they have ZERO impact on anyone, much less an imbalanced mind, isn't accurate. To reiterate a point I made a few weeks ago--ALL of these movies should be made, and I suspect a Devil's Rejects or a Joker has an overall positive effect on society as a whole.

What's your magic bullet to stop the 50K or so suicides per year in the US? Those are the people you're most concerned about, because it's a slice of them that are doing the mass shootings. Prior to mass media these people may have just either killed themselves quietly or taken out their parent/spouse/neighbor first and THEN offed themselves or ended up in jail, but now thanks to the possibility of media glory some are choosing to off a room of people first to become infamous. We've recently discovered the best solution to this already, and MOST of the press is implementing it--just stop using the shooter's name in the press, ENTIRELY. Refer to mass killings in some other way, but do NOT use the killer's name or show their faces in media, EVER. That way the lure of infamy is gone. The legitimate news outlets are now doing this, but far more than enough less-reputable news sources continue to use killer's identities.

fairly typical, the RT is a yes/no toggle, the Metacritic is an actual average of critical scores. and there goes the RT below 70. must've been something in the water in Venice. When comparing the Tomatometer to the Metacritic score, yes, it's typical. It's not typical to see a Rotten Tomatoes average rating of 7.4 and a Metacritic rating of 58 though since those metrics are compiled using the same method. Without doing a critic-by-critic review of the scores the only assumption I can make is that the reviewers Metacritic samples just liked the movie a lot less for whatever reason than the Rotten Tomatoes ones did.

I've never seen an interview with Joaquin Phoenix that WASN'T awkward; he was awkward with Chris Hardwick in the podcast link I posted yesterday. He's got a bizarre personality. The epitome of his weirdness is that time about a decade ago when he "retired" to do rap music that he later claimed was a reality performance piece. He looks stoned on his trainwreck of an interview on David Letterman.

When did that change? It used to be 60%.

Someone found a page in progress on the Hasbro Pulse web site describing an undescribed Ant-Man Marvel Legends Haslab project.

Oh, I either never knew that or forgot it if you pointed it out earlier this year in this thread. Did it happen?

Did they ever put the Barge up for sale beyond the initial fundraising period like they indicated they would? I never saw it if they did, so I'm guessing they changed their mind.

Just heard my first podcast interview with Joaquin ever on Chris Hardwick's show. Kind of awkward and corny towards the start but got better as it went along. Hardwick has had a rough time getting guests since his girlfriend trashed him during #MeToo last year; this is the biggest get I've seen from him since then. https://player.fm/series/id10t-with-chris-hardwick/joaquin-phoenix

Most of us here were probably guessing the same thing when we first heard about these Disney Plus shows. It seems rather obvious aside from the idea that Kevin Feige may never get a chance to sleep again. I just hope he's at least TRYING to build up a stable of fanboy consiglieres to spread the work out. He can't produce everything.

Maybe you were kidding here but he's not the founder of Herbalife. That Mark Hughes died two decades ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_R._Hughes

My significant other HATES comic book movies and won't watch any, but she wants to see this because she's a fan of Joaquin Phoenix and because it doesn't have any costumed superheroes in it. The Joker doesn't draw women, but Joaquin does. She also likes critically-acclaimed films, and the reviews on this along with winning the Venice Film Festival award has her interested. In general you're right though, this isn't the film that would typically draw women, but this one will draw more than it otherwise would have. I tried to get her to see "The Dark Knight" before we see this, but no go. She can't sit through a superhero film.

We've always been fragile, technology just makes us more aware than ever of how fragile we are.

I've been using JustWatch for about two years, LOVE it. It's the most efficient way to figure out which services are offering a specific movie or show you're interested in watching. I'm really surprised that a service like theirs hasn't become the most popular content guide out there, it's better than any others I've ever used.

I'm unclear then--you've got an idea for making Magneto a Holocaust survivor without him being elderly in the modern MCU, or are you saying we have to retire Magneto just because Chris Claremont had the idea of making him a Holocaust survivor almost two decades after his original creation and there's no way to ret-con that?

Are you referring to him being cut or something about his on-screen agility? He should be able to keep lifting weights indefinitely. Sylvester Stallone is still buff at 73, and Jackman is still only 50.

The earliest mention of it I can find is from X-Men #150 in 1981 by Chris Claremont on the page below.

Does anyone know when Magneto's background of being in the holocaust was first scripted? It's not in X-Men #1.

I've never seen good evidence that Stan actually had Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in mind at the start of the X-Men in 1963, but he definitely thought of it later. Either way it mostly fits, but not perfectly. Magneto was a mutant supremacist for decades and still is in some versions of the character, but Malcolm X discarded black supremacy in the year leading up to him leaving the Nation of Islam in 1964. I have no doubt he modeled it on one race or religion being subjugated by another, but if he really had Malcolm and King in mind then why not make Magneto or Xavier black? Racism in his readers is one legitimate concern he may have had, but he's never addressed it that I've seen, and I've never seen him specifically claim that he did model the characters after Malcolm and King leading up to the first issue in 1963. Mostly I've heard him point out in retrospect that they parallel those two guys well, but that may have been a happy accident.

He's by far the most popular X-villain ever, and more importantly he's Malcolm X to Xavier's Martin Luther King. Difficult to imagine X-Men without Magneto.

Is he any buffer than Hemsworth? I thought they went for definition and insanely low body fat percentage with Jackman which is why he's more veiny, whereas with Hemsworth they went for more bulk and less definition.

How do you write Magneto into being a Native American? I'm sure there's a way, but he'd be quite different since they weren't wiped out specifically because of who they were but because of the land they occupied. Seems like apples and oranges in translating Magneto's origins into societal bigotry against mutants.