Yeah so different people place different importance on different things. For some it's incredibly important that he be perma-white, for others not, ok. We have different scales and that's fine. But that said I still think there's a point where you can, or even have to, be objective here.I don't think you can justify everything into infinity with "oh it's another persons opinion dude."
Which is not what I said. "It's my opinion" isn't an argument. The only opinion worth having is the one that can be justified, in which case the justification is what matters, not the fact that it's somebody's opinion.
Sometimes other peoples opinions are just bunk, they're not balanced judgments, but people can defend them in a tangle of semantics and perspectives until they seemingly "prove" their opinion by drowning the other side in words that seem clever but are actually referring to nothing. Nothing but vague notions that exist only in a persons head, not in reality.
In this instance, what exists in reality is unimportant. It's a movie, and everything you like about it is only in your head.
In any debate or measurement there's going to be a point where peoples scales are not so much about weighing quality, but rather have descended into a form of self serving arrogance that only serves a personal service. Rather than looking fairly at a subject matter, which is the assumed intended activity. "I'm here to say why the new Joker sucks" becomes "I'm here to feel smart and proud by saying something easy and stubborn and against the grain". If it's a balanced complaint then hat's fine, but usually they're not, it's just a mess of one-sided nonsense. I have no problem looking at all the good things about this Joker, weighing them against the make-up, and saying to whingers "you know what? ****. Be grateful, you sod".There are things that are pure and definitive about the Joker that have been nailed in this version, things that are absent in Nicholson and TAS, and I wont entertain debating what these things are because we already know them. To say they're not evident in TDK is just outright fallacy (and ok I know no one is really saying that), but to pretend that this checklist is somehow spoiled by the make-up is just so dubious, I don't care how important perma-white is to someone.If they think it's THAT important, they simply have their head in the clouds and people should not be afraid of treading on opinions when they call them on that.
If you want to tear apart on opinion that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, that's one thing--I'm the first person to say we should disrespect opinions that don't make sense--but that's not what you're doing. You're not saying "The reason you think bleached skin is important is faulty for reasons X, Y, and Z." That would be great. What you're saying, though, is "It's not important, you're just silly, your head is just in the clouds, K.O. punch, be grateful, you're just trying to look 'smart and proud,' you're a whiner." That's not the same. That's not an argument.
In the end, all that does is make you look like the "sods" you describe, spouting their "one-sided nonsense," deliberately disregarding the possibility that the opposition has merit, and preemptively dismissing it as the "nonsense" of people who have their heads "in the clouds."
Certainly, there are people who complain for the sake of complaining, and there are others who have valid reasons for their complaints, but haven't thought enough to figure out what they are. Yes, that is a problem. No, the solution is not "Shut up and like it!" The solution is for these individuals to
think about the reasons the feel as they do. If they find their reasons aren't valid, they'll change their minds. If they find their reasons are sound, then they will not. Either way, they will have a more honest, reasonable, and sound opinion of the situation--which is superior to the alternative, regardless of which side you're on.
If you want to tear it apart, tear it apart. "Be grateful, you sod" is not tearing it apart.
This is what I mean by "it can be that simple". That this is a more complete Joker is a quantifiable certainty. I could prove it with maths and science. No one can deny it with any credibility. So by being more complete, it IS an admirable Joker, and a person is either dishonest or ignorant if they can't admit that.
No. As I have said repeatedly, it is only important if the qualities achieved are the qualities important to the viewer. It's not "complete" if it doesn't contain what that person consider a critical component. They only lose credibility if they can't reasonably explain why such a component is important, or why it's absence is damaging.
Yaaaaay!
I love you guys.
