Superhero Cinematic Civil War - Part 57

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I've said my piece on this.
If someone thinks that the movie glorifies Arthur, when it clearly doesn't, then so be it.

Maybe we should only make movies where no protagonist does anything wrong. Because there are plenty of works of art that show the protagonist getting anyway for being an ******** or downright evil
Okay, I don't feel like I have been an ******* on this at all, but I also haven't seen you actually make an argument based in anything in the film. I have tried to make my point clear. You just keep saying it shows Arthur as wrong, while not actually showing it. Which actually feels like the general defense of the film.

As to the last bit, when did I say that? I am a Scorsese fan. But beyond the fact that I think the movie just isn't good and think it has a terrible message, you are ignoring that they won't admit what it is about. Did Scorsese hid his intentions with Raging Bull or Goodfellas?
 
Of course you can sound natural with an accent. She does when she's being herself in interviews, but she frequently sounds like she's reading lines when she is in movies because she's a terrible actress. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone be as horribly bad in a line as she is with her "Kal-El, no" line.

As said, I don't think she's the Arnold type. I don't even think the Arnold type is likely to work today. We have actually good actors taking those roles now. But with enough of an "it factor" it still might.
To me in interviews, she sounds like she is speaking a second language and thus struggling like the vast majority do.

BvS is one thing, she is wonderful in Wonder Woman and naturally charismatic as hell in that film.
 
Oh, I don't like Todd Phillips. I don't like Tarantino either, but I do love his movies. Well, most of them. The issue is he has been asked what the movie is about, and he runs from it. Because answering it would be an issue imo. One of the reasons I went to go see it, was because I was curious to watch a review of the film from someone on YT, but I didn't want it to influence my take on the film. Because while I did not like the idea of this movie, I did love the first trailer a lot. Still do. Also how those that made it talk about it, is important with how hard they have been trying to push Joker as art. They want to say it has a message, but won't tell us what that message is. So it's harmless entertainment, but it isn't, because it's art.

I do agree that people take stuff out of context all the time, but this is different imo. Becuase I think they are taking it in context, or at least context WB is fine with them taking it in, because it made them so much money. I think it matters what the movie itself tells you. And I think both Black Panther and Joker have very different messages. Killmonger is a black militant response to systemic racism, the American war machine, and the othering of people not considered "black enough" in the black community. The other is a really angry middle age white gentleman, who thinks the system is completely against, and the movie says it is. Both very wrong imo, but Black Panther tells you why Killmonger is doing what he is doing, while at the same time telling you there is no justification for his actions. Not even that pure gutteral response you get for what happened to him, can possibly justify his actions. Especially with T'Challa's right there to make it clear. Joker doesn't do that with Arthur. If anything, it justifies his actions imo. And to me that is important. One movie is telling you the baddie is wrong even with his theoretical justification, the other is glorifying the very image of terrorism in North America today.

Are you asking why people in general do it, or me? Because I hate that stuff and talk about it. I know, because I have read the responses to it. I would point out that Wolf did get backlash, that I thought was rather unjustified. I still remember seeing it in theaters and the entire theater reacting to Leo punching Robbie. It is legitimately the biggest gasp I can remember in a theater, and it put into perspective for everyone just who Jordan was. The movie does that over its whole run time, but I also don't think a lot of people got it outside of that one big visceral moment.

As to Joker. Well we are kind of living in a very specific place and time, and I can understand why it is resonating how it is for a lot of people. With the unmasking of white nationalism and the incel community in general. Some stuff has happened over the last decade that might just make it all really gross for some people. Like me! That being said, I also think it is just a really bad movie. A really pretty one though.
Why should a director need to say what message the movie has? Why can't he leave it to the audience and let them make up their own mind? And does a movie really need to have a good message? Or any direct message at all?
 
To me in interviews, she sounds like she is speaking a second language and thus struggling like the vast majority do.

BvS is one thing, she is wonderful in Wonder Woman and naturally charismatic as hell in that film.

Gal is more than proficient enough to carry a natural conversation in English. If she wasn't she shouldn't even think about being in a Hollywood movie. There's a noticeable difference in when she is herself and when she tries to act.

That she has charisma isn't enough when that doesn't extend to her speaking. She's a model so of course she can look good and have a charming smile. As Schlosser85 mentioned Dwayne Johnson, he's a good example of someone that isn't that good of an actor (way better than Gadot though) but who has charisma that actually extends to speaking. Of course he has a lot more it factor with his look as well.

Time will tell if she improves her acting though. Then maybe some more people want to hire her.
 
Just because Arthur in his own mind has been "wronged" by Murray Franklin doesn't mean the movie thinks it's warranted when he shoots him in the head in the end. To any reasonable person watching, Arthur is the psycho. Murray even calls him out on all his self-pity before he kills him.
Except Arthur isn't a "psycho". He as literal very overt, on point emotional response to his bully. As to the "reasonable person" concept. I agree. That is what I think he is. The issue is, apparently half the city is unreasonable, because they go with him. The people who are protesting the corrupt, are on the side of the murdering psycho without any hesitation.

See, the movie there tells Arthur he was right. Doing what he did got him what he wanted. It gave him the relief he was begging for. He wells up, is a wreck and then is treated like he is the second coming. Does he question this? Does the crowd? No, we are finally met with the Arthur who is at peace with himself.
 
Why should a director need to say what message the movie has? Why can't he leave it to the audience and let them make up their own mind? And does a movie really need to have a good message? Or any direct message at all?
If he wanted to leave it open for interpretation, fine. But Phillips and WB don't. Phoenix doesn't. Because when questioned about it, they get really defensive, while not actually really providing a response to what the movie is actually about. Just what they say it isn't. When they were confronted about this movie during it's release, that actually freaked out about it. Which to me, says a lot.
 
Yea, frankly I think you're projecting a lot onto the movie, and I'm done going round and round about it, so I guess agree to disagree.

Re: Gadot, she speaks English very well with a slight accent, far less than what Arnold Schwarzenegger or Marion Cotillard have. Her speaking English as a second language is not the problem. Her problem is her stiffness as an actress.
 
Gal is more than proficient enough to carry a natural conversation in English. If she wasn't she shouldn't even think about being in a Hollywood movie. There's a noticeable difference in when she is herself and when she tries to act.

That she has charisma isn't enough when that doesn't extend to her speaking. She's a model so of course she can look good and have a charming smile. As Schlosser85 mentioned Dwayne Johnson, he's a good example of someone that isn't that good of an actor (way better than Gadot though) but who has charisma that actually extends to speaking. Of course he has a lot more it factor with his look as well.

Time will tell if she improves her acting though. Then maybe some more people want to hire her.
Maybe you and I have different takes on what natural means, but that is not what I see here. Especially with Fisher right next to her, with her accent.



As a WWE fan, I am going to say you are underrating the Rock's acting skills. His popularity literally comes from convincing people he is the coolest person around.
 
Yea, frankly I think you're projecting a lot onto the movie, and I'm done going round and round about it, so I guess agree to disagree.

Re: Gadot, she speaks English very well with a slight accent, far less than what Arnold Schwarzenegger or Marion Cotillard have. Her speaking English as a second language is not the problem. Her problem is her stiffness as an actress.
I disagree I am the one projecting on this one. Especially as the answer to all this simply seems to be, "it doesn't do that". Except, it totally does and I have shown exactly when it does that.

Gal has a giant accent. Just look at the video I posted above.
 
If he wanted to leave it open for interpretation, fine. But Phillips and WB don't. Phoenix doesn't. Because when questioned about it, they get really defensive, while not actually really providing a response to what the movie is actually about. Just what they say it isn't. When they were confronted about this movie during it's release, that actually freaked out about it. Which to me, says a lot.
I haven't seen them get defensive about it, so I can't really comment on that part. But I still don't understand why he would need to provide an answer to what the movie is actually about if he doesn't want to. You seem to think that the movie had a bad message. But does a movie really need to have a good message?
 
Of course you can sound natural with an accent. She does when she's being herself in interviews, but she frequently sounds like she's reading lines when she is in movies because she's a terrible actress. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone be as horribly bad in a line as she is with her "Kal-El, no" line..
I’m pretty sure there are actors who have given line readings as bad(if not worse) in movies before especially if you look at the Star Wars prequels.
 
I’m pretty sure there are actors who have given line readings as bad(if not worse) in movies before especially if you look at the Star Wars prequels.

Hayden Christensen makes Gal Gadot look like Kate Winslet (or whoever) by comparison.

Hell, even people like Samuel L. Jackson sound like they're reading off cue cards in the prequels half the time.
 
I haven't seen them get defensive about it, so I can't really comment on that part. But I still don't understand why he would need to provide an answer to what the movie is actually about if he doesn't want to. You seem to think that the movie had a bad message. But does a movie really need to have a good message?
Phoenix literally walked out of an interview for an hour:

Joaquin Phoenix Walks Off ‘Joker’ Interview After Question About Film Inciting Violence

WB had their little press release.

As I said, if they want to leave it open for interpretation, fine. But they clearly don't. They get upset when people point out the themes on display.

As to whether a movie needs to have a good message, nope. But if your movie is pro terrorism, while at the same time sympathizing with a communities know for their racism and misogyny, own it. Don't run from it.
 
I’m pretty sure there are actors who have given line readings as bad(if not worse) in movies before especially if you look at the Star Wars prequels.


For me the biggest issue is who ever shot that scene and was like, "that's fine". Like who heard Gal say the line like that and signed off on it? Jenkins didn't do that in WW. Hell, Snyder didn't even do that in BvS.
 
But if your movie is pro terrorism, while at the same time sympathizing with a communities know for their racism and misogyny, own it. Don't run from it.

Oh please. This is just an abjectly false, disingenuous, and politically-driven narrative.
 
To me in interviews, she sounds like she is speaking a second language and thus struggling like the vast majority do.

BvS is one thing, she is wonderful in Wonder Woman and naturally charismatic as hell in that film.

I agree with you on this point. In these interview she also has a personality, but it does sound straight up second language when she speaks.

Nowhere near the proficiency of a Marion Cotillard or Ah-nuld. But again she's very exuberant.
 
To me, on a technical level, Gadot speaks English better than Cotillard does, and with a less pronounced accent than Arnold, but is a much stiffer/weaker actress than Cotillard and in some ways maybe even stiffer than Arnold.
 
Maybe you and I have different takes on what natural means, but that is not what I see here. Especially with Fisher right next to her, with her accent.



As a WWE fan, I am going to say you are underrating the Rock's acting skills. His popularity literally comes from convincing people he is the coolest person around.


I can't see the clip here but she definitely comes across as someone that can just have a conversation about whatever when I've seen her on talkshows. And as said, if she can't do that she shouldn't even be thinking about acting. And I mean that literally. If someone can't have a normal conversation in a language it's laughable to even think about that person acting in that language.

My actor comment was in terms of the general craft of acting. He's certainly good at the aspect that he focuses on and I don't lump him in with the likes of Gadot. They are miles apart. As for convincing people that he's cool, he actually is really cool as well.
 
Oh please. This is just an abjectly false, disingenuous, and politically-driven narrative.
What happened to agree to disagree? :o

It'st not false. Not one bit. Arthur is a literal incel and terrorist, who the film sympathizes with, places in the role of victim and then hands him his catharsis in the end. To be fair to the movie, I don't think it was politically-driven. I just think they realized how much money they could get them right now. Which was good for them, because they made a bad movie and made some nice coin off it.
 
@AdhesiveBoy, Give me your feedback!


Which line reading is worse to you: Gal‘s line reading of, “Kal-El no!”


.....Or This: Hayden Christensen’s line reading of “What have I done.”

If you say Gadot’s line reading is any worse than Christensen’s than I’m afraid I’m gonna laugh. :funny:
 
Last edited:
@AdhesiveBoy, Give me your feedback!


Which line reading is worse to you: Gal‘s line reading of, “Kal-El no!”


.....Or This: Hayden Christensen’s line reading of “What have I done.”

I


Yea, Christensen's delivery is still worse. Markedly so, IMO.
 
I'd add that "convincing people he's the coolest man on the planet" was largely Arnold's thing in the eighties as well.
Same with Sly and Bruce Willis to an extent. Though Willis and Sly both had that every man part to them. Oh and as a just straight up actor, Willis is on another level imo. Same with Sly really.
 
Same with Sly and Bruce Willis to an extent. Though Willis and Sly both had that every man part to them. Oh and as a just straight up actor, Willis is on another level imo. Same with Sly really.

Willis is a better actor than Schwarzenegger, at least when he gives a crap in stuff like The Sixth Sense or Looper where he's actually acting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"