Birds of Prey

[Calvert28]

38 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I mean, it would but what part of Birds of Prey is offensive to you?
In your scenario, you're enlisting boring misogynistic tropes that would almost certainly be called out for.

I think saying "it's not meant for you" is the least offensive thing up there.

I guess I just don't understand why people have to be negative about a movie because of one common denominator. Like this, Star Wars, Captain Marvel, Ocean's, Ghostbusters. It's just a weird thing to be contrarian about imo.

I also don't want to derail this or get it locked so anyone can PM if they want. I'm interested in learning from other's perspectives.
 

Well 3 out of 4 of those movies bombed or vastly under performed at the box office so I'm not sure those are good examples. 

I mean if that's their target audiance they are going for, maybe they should lower box office expectations because they are just not justifying the big movie budgets.  

 

[AlexGreen#20]

12 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

I mean, it would but what part of Birds of Prey is offensive to you?
In your scenario, you're enlisting boring misogynistic tropes that would almost certainly be called out for.

I think saying "it's not meant for you" is the least offensive thing up there.

I guess I just don't understand why people have to be negative about a movie because of one common denominator. Like this, Star Wars, Captain Marvel, Ocean's, Ghostbusters. It's just a weird thing to be contrarian about imo.

I also don't want to derail this or get it locked so anyone can PM if they want. I'm interested in learning from other's perspectives.
 

As a white guy in my 20s, I don't get any mileage out of being offended, so I don't really think about things in those terms. The closest I get is just "not liking" things.

I don't like the glorification of Harley Quinn. This is a character that's supposed to be a classic example of what consistent domestic psychological abuse does to people. She starts out as a therapist in Arkham and gradually losses her sense of self and eventually her every identity is that of the Jokers assistant and she's committing atrocities to please him. This is a cautionary tale, not something that should be celebrated because she's quirky. I'm especially going to roll my eyes if I'm getting a women empowerment lecture from that character wearing THAT outfit.

As far as the not made for you argument, itself is whatever. It's the accompanying subtext of "because it's not made for you, your opinion is invalid, so shut up." Nobody cares if somebody said that a rom com isn't for men, because there isn't the internet level, but being told your opinion is invalid about a subject there's interest for based on race/gender kinda sucks. Especially when it's by the same people who here themselves off about how progressive they are.

There's negativity about those movies because they suck, either overall or competed to other movies in the same series. You see more hostility though when a movie sucks and the perception is that it's worse because the studio over emphasized the need for diverse representation at the cost of story telling

[animaltested]

29 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

"Evil is individuals not systems" is a flawed concept when the chosen individuals are either represented to select a system or as an obstacle for character growth. Iron Monger in Iron Man 1 is clearly a representation of the almost radically militarized industrial complex. The message in that movie is very clearly that this thing is bad. Captain America Winter Soldier doesn't really have an individual villain, it has an overarching Hydra group that uses Winter Soldier as it's hand to commit actions. If you squint hard at Thor 1 you can pull out the narrative that the sons of successful fathers who've grown up sheltered and wanting for nothing grow up to be self obsessed and make terrible leaders, something we see frequently across sports leagues and the world in general (New York Knicks, North Korea).

I guess I'm missing the American Exceptionalism angle in Marvel. In most of the movies, the US Military is either incompetent, entirely absent, or downright nefarious. There's a strong argument to be made that the Marvel people really don't like America when they created a fictionalized African society with universe breaking technology because they wanted to highlight (I hesitate to use the word fabricate?) African American exceptionalism.  The Marvel movies are incredibly critical of the United States government as a whole.

As far as the few being the only one's powerful enough to make a difference, well **** it's a narrative media. That's not Marvel movies, that's every book, movie, and play ever created.

+++

As far as being critical of the feminist messaging, we've come to expect a number of painful things when we see that narrative:

• The portrayal that most/all men are evil, greedy, self-obsessed, lustful, gross, whatever, that just about always comes with it.
• The routine take down of existing favorite characters just to establish that a particular character is legit. Often an establishment that has no basis in existing lore.
• The lack of flaws of the women characters, almost always with the message that, "You just have to believe in yourself, and stop letting the men in your life hold you back and you'll be amazing."

The other thing about women characters in movies like this is that it's often times very jarring to watch combat scenes. It's less obtrusive when it's something like Captain Marvel where she has super abilities, but watching Hollywood's favorite kind of woman (5'3 105 pounds) beat up a group of guys that are 6'0 200 that are supposedly trained fighters is just bizarre to watch, because you instinctively know that Scarlett Johansen (and this is the least offensive of them considering often how acrobatic and how hard Black Widow works to make these fights semi-realistic) doesn't have knockout power. And I totally get the argument for suspension of disbelief, but I know for myself it's immersion breaking. 

 

On this first point, individuals might represent the system, but usually (in a general sense) the hero defeats the individual, the system behind it, or apart of it crumbles or diminishes. I am not disputing the viewpoint, only offering an example of an agenda within a medium. A better example would be in Nolans Batman movies. There is a very clear agenda (obliviously playing to a particular part of the political spectrum) revolving around crime. That the issues with Gotham are crime, and that solving Gothams issues are through clamping down on corruption and crime. Bruce sees Gothams salvation as coming through people like Harvey Dent and their are hardline approach to ending crime (going after corruption and the mafia). But, its pretty apparent Gothams underlining issues come from income inequality and social division (something touched on in the 1st movie, and something both the Joker and Bane try to exploit). Nowhere in the Nolan films do any of the principal characters attempt to fix or help the underlying issues, but instead, the audience is shown the forceful approach of  law and order being the main avenue to peace. That is a very, very heavy handed agenda. 

American Exceptionalism was the context for early Marvel/DC characters grew from, and The two principal leaders of the Avengers and Justice League represent different aspects of Americanism. Bruce/Tony embody the pragmatic, benevolent entrepreneur industrialist and Superman/Captain America the moralist, traditionalists. Through their cooperation, they bring together a team to protect earth from itself and external threats. Their views on justice, virtue, and morals are all representative of American ideals (written by Americans for Americans). Its through this viewpoint, the Avengers/Justice League sees the universe and how to protect it. Is their role ever actually called into question? Yes, but only by nefarious elements. Does their place as Earths defenders come through the people they supposedly protect OR from the mandate of their powers, and being the only ones with the power to do so, and so they should?  Again, an agenda. 

You seem to have missed the point of the entire post. I was critiquing the notion for criticism about movies having an agenda, and making the point that all of the previous movies had agendas, they were agendas that people didn't have a problem with, because they either agree with it, or have been exposed to it enough that it seems natural to include. Trying to poke holes in said agendas, doesn't disway that argument. In short I thinks  its silly to say "I don't want politics in my entertainment" when the previous medium was rifle and full of politics and agendas. The issue isn't the inclusion of agendas and politics, but the inclusion of agendas and politics you don't want to see, deal with, or acknowledge.

[Fl0nkerton]

19 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

As a white guy in my 20s, I don't get any mileage out of being offended, so I don't really think about things in those terms. The closest I get is just "not liking" things.

I don't like the glorification of Harley Quinn. This is a character that's supposed to be a classic example of what consistent domestic psychological abuse does to people. She starts out as a therapist in Arkham and gradually losses her sense of self and eventually her every identity is that of the Jokers assistant and she's committing atrocities to please him. This is a cautionary tale, not something that should be celebrated because she's quirky. I'm especially going to roll my eyes if I'm getting a women empowerment lecture from that character wearing THAT outfit.

As far as the not made for you argument, itself is whatever. It's the accompanying subtext of "because it's not made for you, your opinion is invalid, so shut up." Nobody cares if somebody said that a rom com isn't for men, because there isn't the internet level, but being told your opinion is invalid about a subject there's interest for based on race/gender kinda sucks. Especially when it's by the same people who here themselves off about how progressive they are.

There's negativity about those movies because they suck, either overall or competed to other movies in the same series. You see more hostility though when a movie sucks and the perception is that it's worse because the studio over emphasized the need for diverse representation at the cost of story telling

This is really well articulated.

I'm not versed in any of the comic books or their movies for that matter, so I've got nothing when it comes to the backstory and things being believable / canon. I don't want to pigeon-hole myself but I try to be more of the "let people enjoy things" crowd, which is boring but if I don't want to see something, I'm just not going to go out and see it. I'm also not gonna trash it for the sole purpose of not wanting to see it.

I enjoyed Star Wars. I thought Ghostbusters was fine. Captain Marvel was really well done. Didn't feel the need to see Oceans, but I dig the vision behind it. Inclusion is important. 

[Fl0nkerton]

36 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Well 3 out of 4 of those movies bombed or vastly under performed at the box office so I'm not sure those are good examples. 

I mean if that's their target audiance they are going for, maybe they should lower box office expectations because they are just not justifying the big movie budgets.  

 

A lot of those were maligned pretty heavily online and drove people away imo. Kelly Marie Tran and Leslie Jones got death threats for literally just being in a movie.

But I agree with the lowering of expectations. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Fl0nkerton

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, animaltested said:

On this first point, individuals might represent the system, but usually (in a general sense) the hero defeats the individual, the system behind it, or apart of it crumbles or diminishes. I am not disputing the viewpoint, only offering an example of an agenda within a medium. A better example would be in Nolans Batman movies. There is a very clear agenda (obliviously playing to a particular part of the political spectrum) revolving around crime. That the issues with Gotham are crime, and that solving Gothams issues are through clamping down on corruption and crime. Bruce sees Gothams salvation as coming through people like Harvey Dent and their are hardline approach to ending crime (going after corruption and the mafia). But, its pretty apparent Gothams underlining issues come from income inequality and social division (something touched on in the 1st movie, and something both the Joker and Bane try to exploit). Nowhere in the Nolan films do any of the principal characters attempt to fix or help the underlying issues, but instead, the audience is shown the forceful approach of  law and order being the main avenue to peace. That is a very, very heavy handed agenda. 

American Exceptionalism was the context for early Marvel/DC characters grew from, and The two principal leaders of the Avengers and Justice League represent different aspects of Americanism. Bruce/Tony embody the pragmatic, benevolent entrepreneur industrialist and Superman/Captain America the moralist, traditionalists. Through their cooperation, they bring together a team to protect earth from itself and external threats. Their views on justice, virtue, and morals are all representative of American ideals (written by Americans for Americans). Its through this viewpoint, the Avengers/Justice League sees the universe and how to protect it. Is their role ever actually called into question? Yes, but only by nefarious elements. Does their place as Earths defenders come through the people they supposedly protect OR from the mandate of their powers, and being the only ones with the power to do so, and so they should?  Again, an agenda. 

You seem to have missed the point of the entire post. I was critiquing the notion for criticism about movies having an agenda, and making the point that all of the previous movies had agendas, they were agendas that people didn't have a problem with, because they either agree with it, or have been exposed to it enough that it seems natural to include. Trying to poke holes in said agendas, doesn't disway that argument. In short I thinks  its silly to say "I don't want politics in my entertainment" when the previous medium was rifle and full of politics and agendas. The issue isn't the inclusion of agendas and politics, but the inclusion of agendas and politics you don't want to see, deal with, or acknowledge.

You understand how I have a very hard time not rolling my eyes when you criticize ******* batman in a batman movie about not doing enough to fix political economic income inequality? Additionally,  it's not like Harvey Dent was running on a platform of minimum 1 year weed possession sentences.  He was pushing to prosecute organized crime. Organized crime is a very very bad thing for low income neighborhoods. 

You're not describing American exceptionalism.  You're describing an American centric view point.  Other nations have those same character arc types. American exceptionalism is the idea that America is capable of things that other nations aren't,  or that it's somehow superior.  The avengers entire history in films is saving the world from America's malevolence (trying to Nuke Manhattan) or incompetence (letting the Helicarriers get taken over by Hydra. As far as their views being American centric, we're saying this based on what? The Avengers only real clear stance in these movies seem to be that hostile alien invasion is bad.  I don't think that's an exclusively American opinion. 

As far as their role in the world,  yes that is discussed. We had a ******* movie about it.  

If the agenda/ politics is widely accepted is it even politics at that point,  or is it just widely accepted reality?

The argument isn't that you don't want politics in the movie,  it's that you don't wane obstructive or distracting politics in the movie. Especially considering some of the epic crap that particular strain of politics has produced. 

[AlexGreen#20]

14 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

A lot of those were maligned pretty heavily online and drove people away imo. Kelly Marie Tran and Leslie Jones got death threats for literally just being in a movie.

But I agree with the lowering of expectations. 

They were maligned because they sucked. As far as death threats,  I don't mean to shrug it off,  but we're a nation of 350 million people and every idiot has Twitter.

[Calvert28]

2 hours ago, Fl0nkerton said:

A lot of those were maligned pretty heavily online and drove people away imo. Kelly Marie Tran and Leslie Jones got death threats for literally just being in a movie.

But I agree with the lowering of expectations. 

Not true. The Joker is getting bashed up and down and is exceeding expectations at the Box Office. Passion of the Christ was crucified by critics all over America and became the highest grossing R rated film of all time. If a movie is great or very entertaining, it's going to make money the majority of the time. Some bomb at the box office but become cult classics but mostly because they were originals that grew on people later. 

Captain Marvel had the benefit of working from the Avengers franchise. But BoP is working off Suicide Squad, and just brought up heated subject with the target audiance debate started by Ewan. 

So they are relying on weird humor and action that tries to be too much like a toned down Deadpool movie. On top of building on a already failed movie while causing controversy. 

I just dont see how this movie doesnt bomb cause I doubt it's original and entertaining like some of the other hits of the past few years. More then likely it's going to be cookie cutter and that just doesnt work unless your Marcel right now. 

[INbengalfan]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:18 PM, Calvert28 said:

 Passion of the Christ was crucified

Yes, that was also the intended plot

[43M]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:18 PM, Calvert28 said:

Not true. The Joker is getting bashed up and down and is exceeding expectations at the Box Office.

The difference between Joker and Ghostbusters is Joker has been mainly bashed by "professional" critics but given praise by fans and normal moviegoers, while Ghostbusters was given decent grades by "pros" and bashed by fans.    I think now more than ever, trust in "pro" critics is at an all time low.     I trust fans opinions much more than the so call pros.

Beyond that, Joker is based on a very popular character with a very good actor portraying him.    

The 2016 Ghostbusters movie was a terrible idea, because they were trying to reboot a popular 1980s franchise that had beloved actors in the roles, and basically changed everything about Ghostbusters.   They used dumbed down 2010's CBS style comedy with (IMO) largely unfunny actresses.     Like I said before the movie came out, if they had just attempted to start a new franchise with those actresses, I doubt there would be any issue, but since they decided to try to stand on the back of a popular franchise, it got alot of extra scrutiny.  

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said:

The difference between Joker and Ghostbusters is Joker has been mainly bashed by "professional" critics but given praise by fans and normal moviegoers, while Ghostbusters was given decent grades by "pros" and bashed by fans.    I think now more than ever, trust in "pro" critics is at an all time low.     I trust fans opinions much more than the so call pros.

Beyond that, Joker is based on a very popular character with a very good actor portraying him.    

The 2016 Ghostbusters movie was a terrible idea, because they were trying to reboot a popular 1980s franchise that had beloved actors in the roles, and basically changed everything about Ghostbusters.   They used dumbed down 2010's CBS style comedy with (IMO) largely unfunny actresses.     Like I said before the movie came out, if they had just attempted to start a new franchise with those actresses, I doubt there would be any issue, but since they decided to try to stand on the back of a popular franchise, it got alot of extra scrutiny.  

Yea, I've been saying this since The Last Jedi. I just dont even pay attention to most of them. You should have read this article some tool from the NY Times wrote about the movie. He was clearly grasping at straws. 

[43M]

2 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Yea, I've been saying this since The Last Jedi. I just dont even pay attention to most of them. You should have read this article some tool from the NY Times wrote about the movie. He was clearly grasping at straws. 

Well, I wouldnt pay attention to the New York Times, either.    All they do is grasp at straws because they are fading into obscurity. 

Different strokes for different folks.   If people go to and enjoy a movie like Birds of Prey and enjoy it....great.    But if/when it bombs, its failure is going to be blamed on nonsense like "toxic masculinity" and other nonsense rather than the facts that WB/DC have been putting out mediocre movies for years which will keep alot of people away, and the fact that, to many people, the movie simply looks bad.    

Maybe we will get another trailer which will make the movie look better than a cosplay Harley Quinn solo movie, but I personally think the movie is going to bomb.   Not because I have no interest in it, but because I simply dont think WB has a clue what they are doing, or how to properly use the DC characters and universe.

[Ozzy]

On 10/12/2019 at 4:14 PM, FourThreeMafia said:

Well, I wouldnt pay attention to the New York Times, either.    All they do is grasp at straws because they are fading into obscurity. 

Different strokes for different folks.   If people go to and enjoy a movie like Birds of Prey and enjoy it....great.    But if/when it bombs, its failure is going to be blamed on nonsense like "toxic masculinity" and other nonsense rather than the facts that WB/DC have been putting out mediocre movies for years which will keep alot of people away, and the fact that, to many people, the movie simply looks bad.    

Maybe we will get another trailer which will make the movie look better than a cosplay Harley Quinn solo movie, but I personally think the movie is going to bomb.   Not because I have no interest in it, but because I simply dont think WB has a clue what they are doing, or how to properly use the DC characters and universe.

Warner Bros has been putting out mediocre movies?

 

Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, American Sniper, Wonder Woman, all the Harry Potter films, The Hangover, The Blind Side etc 

 

Sure Aquaman, Man of Steel, It, Suicide Squad were not good movies but cannot all be great, oddly enough Aquaman made a crap ton so it 'It' when really that was not a good movie outside of a few funny jokes by the young kids, cannot imagine that second movie being good when they are older.  I still say this is different enough and targets a demographic that is not usually targeted in Comic book movies, they might enjoy it and could come out to see it.  Margot Robbie is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood for a reason, people come out to see her and no idea why this movie will be any different.  Especially when she is the star in it unlike Suicide Squad, even though all know she was the main draw there also.  If the Joker was in Birds of Prey it would be better no doubt but clearly they are aware of the 'Joker' movie coming out...  'Joker' has made $543 million globally so far, sure Birds of Prey will not do the same no way, but shows the market is there obviously for comic book based movies.  A ton of crap ones have made a ton of money, does not mean they are good movies sure.

Harley Quinn is a character I think audiences want explored more and maybe this movie does it, maybe it doesn't, but all it needs is a little buzz before it comes out, will see.

 

 

 

[43M]

Just now, Ozzy said:

Warner Bros has been putting out mediocre movies?

 

Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, American Sniper, Wonder Woman, all the Harry Potter films, The Hangover, The Blind Side etc 

 

Sure Aquaman, Man of Steel, It, Suicide Squad were not good movies but cannot all be great, oddly enough Aquaman made a crap ton so it 'It' when really that was not a good movie outside of a few funny jokes by the young kids, cannot imagine that second movie being good when they are older.  I still say this is different enough and targets a demographic that is not usually targeted in Comic book movies, they might enjoy it and could come out to see it.  Margot Robbie is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood for a reason, people come out to see her and no idea why this movie will be any different.  Especially when she is the star in it unlike Suicide Squad, even though all know she was the main draw there also.  If the Joker was in Birds of Prey it would be better no doubt but clearly they are aware of the 'Joker' movie coming out...  'Joker' has made $543 million globally so far, sure Birds of Prey will not do the same no way, but shows the market is there obviously for comic book based movies.  A ton of crap ones have made a ton of money, does not mean they are good movies sure.

Harley Quinn is a character I think audiences want explored more and maybe this movie does it, maybe it doesn't, but all it needs is a little buzz before it comes out, will see.

 

 

 

I was speaking more of their recent superhero movies and use of the DC universe.   

Every movie you listed is at least 5 years old. I didn't say they never made good movies.

How many blockbuster movies has Margot Robbie been the featured star in? She is definitely a good actress, but I'm not convinced she has had kind of drawing power yet.

Joker making as much money as it has really has no bearing on how popular Birds of Prey will be. Joker may have been based on a comic book character, but it wasn't anything close to a comic book movie.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I was speaking more of their recent superhero movies and use of the DC universe.   

Every movie you listed is at least 5 years old. I didn't say they never made good movies.

How many blockbuster movies has Margot Robbie been the featured star in? She is definitely a good actress, but I'm not convinced she has had kind of drawing power yet.

Joker making as much money as it has really has no bearing on how popular Birds of Prey will be. Joker may have been based on a comic book character, but it wasn't anything close to a comic book movie.

Robbie was great in I, Tonya, sure it did not make a ton (because everyone hates Tonya Harding) but she was extremely good in that I thought.  In Goodbye Christopher Robin she was pretty good as the mom.  Have not seen Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood but she might be good in that will see.  The Wolf of Wall Street she was pretty decent as well and a draw in that movie no doubt.  

Suicide Squad which sucked, but because she was in it as Harley it made over $746 million dollars which is nuts for a movie that was not really good at all.  And she is in a list of new movies coming out, Bombshell, The Suicide Squad, Ruin, Barbie, Marian, Gotham Series etc.  Who knows what they will be but she is sure in a lot of them and no really surprising.  

True Joker is not really a comic book movie but yeah right old people in their 80s are going to it across the board.  It is people going to Comic-Con going to that movie and then some others who want to see it because the Oscar buzz sure but that is not the majority.  People love The Joker as a character, but sure Joaquin is a draw so that helps also but this will easily be his most successful movie box office all time.