fantastic_four

That would be the main reason you'd have to cast Magneto as a person of color; virtually all of the genocides since 1950 that possibly involved more than a million deaths are people of color. To make the modern Magneto be somewhere from his 30s to his 50s, this is the list of genocides you have to choose from: Indonesia 1965-1966 (up to 3 million deaths) Bangladesh 1971 (up to 3 million deaths) Cambodia 1975-1979 (up to 3 million deaths) Rwanda 1994 (up to 1 million deaths)

One of the best movies ever made! I'll always love that film for being the only full frontal that my dream girl Jennifer Connelly has done.

I didn't realize Holmes had said this, and I see his exact quote in court was "Terrorism isn't the message. The message is, there is no message." Does that craft his image for the world as being more, or less, similar to the Joker?

Virtually all studios do though, don't they?

Feel free to quote whichever notes and court transcript bits you're referring to, but I'm guessing it'll just come down to quibbling over semantics so it's probably not useful. As far as I can tell we're actually in agreement.

It's not causation; it's more like tossing gas on a fire that's already raging. Which is no good argument against creating Grand Theft Auto OR this film, and it's a weak one for arguing that Todd Phillips and Joquain Phoenix should have chosen not to make it. The reason we're hearing about this now from critics is due to the exponential increase in mass shootings in America. But with the vast majority of those the most direct cause is the increase of mass media over the past century--suicidal people can now go out in a blaze of glory and become instantly infamous instead of quietly shooting themselves in the face at home. There are multiple reasons we don't see this trend in Japan, but the reason it's happening in America as opposed to other countries isn't as well understood. The main reason it doesn't happen there is due to laws and culture. Suicide has long been a more accepted part of Japanese culture, and even if you wanted to take out everyone you work with before you go it's far harder to get guns there than in America. The only guns that are legal there are shotguns and hunting rifles.

He did what he did because he's a psychopath. The evidence that he was inspired by the character is not just him saying it, but him dying his hair the same color as Ledger, and choosing the premiere of Dark Knight Rises. The quibbling here seems to be over what the word "inspire" means. It's not a synonym for Ledger's character CAUSING the killing, but he was clearly inspired by Ledger's Joker.

BOTH are true, and EVERY serial or mass killer has long-term issues and thoughts of killing people. Killers aren't just born overnight, they follow a long and unpredictably twisting path that begins when they're young children. For Holmes, Heath Ledger was a part of that path, and as we both pointed out it was at the end. Had he not been inspired by that character he probably would've ended up shooting someone else in a different venue at some point.

Yes, he was. Your point was that he had a lifetime of mental disorders so that it's not like Christopher Nolan flipped a kid who was perfectly normal into a mass murderer with a film. Obviously that's true, and I didn't respond to your post two days because it was obvious in mine that you were responding to that I already knew that, but you raced ahead anyway in pointing out how he was already a psychopath before seeing "The Dark Knight," which I already knew and stated myself. I also already knew everything you posted about Holmes since I've been fascinated by serial killers since I was a teenager and followed the story as it happened back then, so I know all about his background. So yes, the film didn't create him, but yes, it did alter him. And as I said in the original post that's sent you off on this rant, Christopher Nolan doesn't deserve any more blame for what Holmes did than Scorsese does for what Hinckley did. Nor should people stop telling stories about psychopaths for fear of helping to inspire others to take action. Like I said earlier this morning, I suspect exploring these dark topics is more therapeutic than detrimental to society as a whole. But I'm not sure of it, which is why I'm discussing it at all. You're picking out parts of my posts that are triggering you for whatever reason, focusing on those, and ignoring the rest, so this probably isn't worth discussing.

I can't tell who you're responding to. My favorite movie ever is "The Dark Knight" almost ENTIRELY because of Heath Ledger, and my forum avatar is Will Graham as portrayed by Hugh Dancy from the Hannibal television show. Where'd you get the idea I don't like the idea of a movie like Joker? It's like you're ranting at critics who don't like the film because they think it can accelerate the increasing trend of mass killings in America but directing it at me.

Tough to equate the Joker with the Punisher. One kills innocents indiscriminately, the other kills only hardcore criminals. Travis Bickle was a maniac, but I'm completely fine with what Dexter Morgan does as a serial killer who hunts other serial killers. I'm looking forward to the first serial killer who idolizes Frank Castle or Dexter Morgan, but I'm not expecting it to happen. Psychopaths are far more likely to be compelled by Bickle or Joker, both of which we've actually seen happen. Or to say they're doing what Frank Castle does but then they end up killing innocents instead, or perhaps innocent people they judge erroneously as being criminals. That's the fictional aspect of murderous vigilantes that doesn't translate as well to real life--Castle or Morgan might be wrong and kill the wrong people, and a real psychopath is HIGHLY likely to do exactly that.

What's the last critically-acclaimed film like this where it almost entirely focuses on a villain with no hero to balance it? Taxi Driver is the only one that comes to mind. I know John Hinckley's obsession with that film had a huge impact on Martin Scorsese for a while and he briefly considered leaving filmmaking. I've never heard him talk about it, but now I'm interested in hearing what he thinks of Hinckley in retrospect and the direct effect his film had on Hinckley. Obviously he's entirely past it since he almost produced this film. I suspect the net social effect of a film like this does more good than harm, but I'm curious about his opinion since he's had the most first-hand experience in thinking about it than almost anyone else.

I've only had that problem with Game of Thrones because enough people watched it that overhearing talk about it at my office was a real concern. Here I just avoid threads for binge-drop shows until I've had time to finish the season. Most recently I avoided "The Boys" thread until I saw it.

It's particularly easy to make that association here because it happened with James Holmes being inspired by Heath Ledger's Joker. They're not wrong, but that doesn't mean society as a whole has to stop making art just because some psychopath might take inspiration in fiction to do something insane.

The trailer didn't compel me either. But neither did the one for the Dark Knight. This new trailer also didn't turn me off, so it's not indicative of anything in particular. I couldn't get a feel for Ledger's performance in just three minutes so I don't expect to get a feel for Phoenix's either in just a trailer. I was mostly looking forward to Nolan's film for two reasons--repeated viewings of Batman Begins that made me realize how great it was so I was ready for another, and the pre-movie hype about Ledger's performance. Now we have even more pre-movie hype, so I'm starting to get excited.

I think that's Marc Maron. I listen to his podcast "WTF" because he gets all the big celebrities and he's a fantastic interviewer.

We've been doing this for decades with extras on DVDs. Are any of the extra bits included with Endgame or Far From Home on Youtube yet? I'm neutral on this until I see what the added extras are. Are they similar to deleted scenes included on DVDs, or are they clearly great scenes that should have been included with the original release?

Since I've now watched the 2014 Thanos die in 2023, I feel like I'm living a prequel right now. I can't wait for the Spider-Man 2099 film to come out so we can finally start calling every film in the main timeline a prequel.

Why does it matter? It reminds me of the trend of extended cuts or deleted scenes on DVDs to help sell them, but instead they're doing it in the theater. If you don't care, don't go see it. If you do, you go see it. The pro I see here is that if it's a movie I really like and do want to see a second time in the theater, having your second viewing include some new footage seems like a bonus with zero disadvantages. I don't think I've done repeat viewings on anything since The Dark Knight...I think I saw that four or five times in the theater. If subsequent viewings had extra footage I would've loved having that bonus.

But ego does, which is what typically motivates someone to post indefinitely about any idea that was worth one or two posts at most.

If we're considering every MCU film together using the terms prequel and sequel don't seem useful. Will the Black Widow film be a prequel? Sort of since it's set in the past, but it takes place after other MCU films like the first Cap movie, so if it precedes some but succeeds others it's not a terribly useful descriptor. It looks like Marvel will continue to freely tell stories that can appear at almost any point in the timeline of the MCU, so it's more useful to just explicitly describe where it fits in the timeline, i.e. "before this" and "after that."

My kid is finally old enough to get something out of Clone Wars and now it's not on Netflix anymore. Can't wait for Disney Plus.

Fox and Sony agreed with you. And we're all worse off for it.

Binged the last 6 episodes on Friday night and Saturday. Freaking awesome show.

Where'd he get it from?