2freaky4church1 said:

EmmaMcG said:

onlyforaminute said:

Yeah, I was kinda there, we've been saying that kind of stuff for decades now but then I wonder if there may not be the canary in the mineshaft element to all this. I mean the whole climate change issue didn't begin a few years ago, its been put forth for decades long before most people could wrap their mindso around the concept that us tiny fragile beings could alter the natural course of a big old giant planet. I mean it is just a movie vs the wellbeing of people. It makes me tetter and seriously wonder, has any studying been done.

I've been watching ultra violent movies since before I could talk. My two favourite movies when I was a child were Robocop and Basic Instinct. And I've never personally killed anyone.

Same here,,,,,I watched violent cartoons/movies/TV shows, read violent comic-books and played ultra-violent videogames like Mortal Kombat & Grand Theft Auto for decades. It's entertainment, fucking make-believe. What are we supposed to do, censor or 'nerf' certain things because some folks with issues can't handle it?

EmmaMcG said:

ufoclub said:

I completely disagree with you on all this. This sounds like it might be short sighted to me.

Here's what you might not be considering: A crazy person can get triggered by the seductive psychological pull of a movie. And then the logic would be, if the movie hadn't been viewed the person wouldn't get triggered to act. The truth is you can't help but accept that a certainn part of the population are not as smart, not as wise, and easily conned, and feel self righteous about their personal lusts, whims, adiidctions (like fast food). On top of that a percentage are mentally ill to varying degrees.

I am noticing that most responses to the criticism of this movie gets really fired up and emotional, and it only proves the criticism further in my opinion. The backlash against the backlash almost sounds like when addicts are questioned and get kind of activated.

All in all, this is almost following the pattern of gun control debate in a rough way.

So you believe that certain stories should never be told because they MIGHT influence someone to commit a crime? Like, Taxi Driver, for example. One of the greatest movies ever made. But because John Hinckley Jr tried to assassinate Reagan after being influenced by the movie you feel that Taxi Driver should have been never made? One of the greatest movies of all time should be banned because of one headcase? Nah, I don't buy that at all. I don't believe in censorship of art. Unless an actual crime was committed in the making of the piece. Like, if Juaquin Phoenix had actually murdered an extra for authenticity. Then yeah, I'd agree that would be a step too far. But this is make believe. And I don't believe that the artist should have to alter their artistic vision to cater to the easily influenced. This is a Prince fan site. Prince has had some very questionable lyrics in his songs. Would you think that he should have censored himself so as not to offend? I use Prince as an example because he's the one thing all of us here have in common but there are countless more singers/rappers/writers who's work could be seen to be influential in the committing of certain crimes. Should they all be banned?

Interesting that you bring up Prince with his self censorship of The Black Album (not wanting that negative energy putting a dark spell on his fans), and then of course his notorious self censorship after he stopped with "bad" language.

Did you know Kubrick recalled "A Clockwork Orange" and banned it himself from being screened or put to video in the UK for a long time, after copycat violence broke out upon it's release?

But I hear you:

Value self entitlement of creative freedom and attributed righteousness of artistic expression over the risk of violence. Correct?

ufoclub said:

I got tickets for tonight. Hope it's not as depressing as the trailer makes it out to be.

onlyforaminute said:

onlyforaminute said:

Has there been any hubbub on how it compares with Heath Ledger's performance? I haven't seen any but im sure it can't be ignored.

Nothing will ever top Ledger's performance. For me, he WAS the Joker. Nolan based it on the early Batman comics and it showed.

Considering the trailers and the tone of the movie are kinda serious, the movie is kinda dumb. No spoilers but a lot of eye rolling moments. A one dimensional witless movie. I feelt bad for Joaquin Phoenix having to be in this.

.

Since this movie is aimed at comic book fans, they may go along with it. Heath Ledger is still by far the best joker. And that movie was written far smarter than s this one,

EmmaMcG said:

ufoclub said:

Interesting that you bring up Prince with his self censorship of The Black Album (not wanting that negative energy putting a dark spell on his fans), and then of course his notorious self censorship after he stopped with "bad" language.

Did you know Kubrick recalled "A Clockwork Orange" and banned it himself from being screened or put to video in the UK for a long time, after copycat violence broke out upon it's release?

But I hear you:

Value self entitlement of creative freedom and attributed righteousness of artistic expression over the risk of violence. Correct?

The Prince and Kubrick examples you bring up are, as you said, SELF censorship. In other words, they themselves decided to censor their own work. They didn't have it censored for them by someone who had no input in, or idea of, the creative process. But if someone had approached Kubrick and told him to censor The Shining for fear of someone being influenced by Jack Nicholson's performance, he would have rightly told them to go fuck themselves. And I know you're being sarcastic but yes, I value creative freedom and the right to artistic expression over the RISK of violence. Because if not, where does it end? Ban John Wick because it promotes gun violence? Ban Star Wars in case some maniac sees it and believes he's the second coming of The Emperor? Ban Superman in case some moron sees it and thinks he can fly? Ban The Joker in case some sad little nerd sees it and believes he's the character from the movie? If that's how you feel, then fair enough. Vote with your wallet, as they say and stay at home. Abstain from watching movies you think may be unacceptable. Just don't try to make decisions for anyone else about what is or isn't acceptable viewing.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I wanted to make sure I was hearing you clearly and you were putting it out there, spelled out for everyone.

ufoclub said:

Joker opened with an impressive $93 million in the US and a $234 million worldwide weekend.

Reportedly costing around $70 million to produce, it's already made a nice profit.

EmmaMcG said:

onlyforaminute said:

Has there been any hubbub on how it compares with Heath Ledger's performance? I haven't seen any but im sure it can't be ignored.

I always found Heath Ledger to be wildly overrated. I probably won't get to see the movie until next week but I expect it to be better than Ledger's Tom Waits impression. I'm not expecting it to be as good as Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill but Juaquin Phoenix is a very talented actor so I'm expecting a more than decent performance.

I agree with that. And the best Joker is Mark Hamill. I look forward to your review. Honestly, the first trailer I saw was HORRIBLE. I notice the other trailers look way better, making it look more like a Joker movie.

We've seen movies with cops getting ready to go to work in the locker room.

.

Doctors in the lockeroom.

.

Atheles in the lookeroom.

.

Teens in the lockeroom.

.

Stripper in the lockeroom

..

And now we have clowns locker room scene with guys putting on their makeup getting ready for work like a scene from Showgirls.

That was my favorite 'WTF?' moment in Joker.

I loved it! Watched it last wedsneday at midnight.
I watched it in Imax but I think a smaller more3 intimate screen is more suitable for a movie like this.

Teh mystery of the Joker stays in tact and all the fan predictions were touched upon.
Can't wait to see it again.

onlyforaminute said:

EmmaMcG said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

We've seen movies with cops getting ready to go to work in the locker room.

.

Doctors in the lockeroom.

.

Atheles in the lookeroom.

.

Teens in the lockeroom.

.

Stripper in the lockeroom

..

And now we have clowns locker room scene with guys putting on their makeup getting ready for work like a scene from Showgirls.

That was my favorite 'WTF?' moment in Joker.

Locker rooms? You're upset about locker rooms?

Checked it out. It had an uphill battle with me at first because I've watched "Taxi Driver" back and forth since I was in grade school. But... it's only superficially like "Taxi Driver", a basic bone here, a small joint there, a tooth there, despite the meta-joke of casting DeNiro. So I didn't really try to hold it to Taxi Driver (again, it does have some basic similarities) In fact, I was also reminded of the crazy mom in "Requiem for a Dream" with some of the fantasy TV glory the character imagines for himself to escape reality. There were some visual reference throwbacks to 70's movies such as "The French Connection" and the audio of the classic Budweiser commercial that is a favorite detail in a moment in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". It’s interesting that I had just caught the remake of “Death Wish” on cable on Sunday as well. That is very much on theme.

To its initial detriment, as it started unfolding for me, I'd been watching the epic "Serpico" while making breakfast just the day before, this past Sunday. What that illustrated was that "Joker" had a ton of secondary contrived characters with no depth despite its ambition to be gritty and textured and harshly real*. That’s specifically characterization I was judging: It's a bit of a cheat to compare the set atmosphere and sense of environment of "Serpico" to “Joker” because "Serpico" was actually shot at the time... the 70's). But I reminded myself that it was a comic book movie, that the contrivance might be inherent or even an essential part of keeping it a DC movie... a graphic novel.

But, despite me being a bit narrow eyed to begin, the protagonist, the lead, is (as that actor can be) was so transcendent of all the shallow characterization around him, he just propelled it. And I'm the type of guy that pops on "3 Woman" because I love the soundtrack (talk about descent into psychological dysfunctional tragedy and destiny). But this held its ground. And it still kept itself in the "Batman" comic-book mode.

Then it simply started to get good. The plot became stronger. And scenes became grippingly interesting, gluing your eyes. For example when he goes to research his mother to find out whats true and what's not. Amazing and passionate. And the secondary character seemed more real!

And then the unveiling and the talk show scene are simply amazing! I first read The Dark Night graphic novel back in 1987, and it just opened up my eyes to edgy cynical possibility in comics. And it had the Joker go on David Letterman. I had always imagined that would have been the breakthrough Batman cinematic style that would sweep away the parody TV show from the 60’s. You can imagine how I’ve have hated on Tim Burton's Batman since I saw it on opening day. Well this movie went to that Frank Miller "Dark Knight" mode for me. Intense.

I didn't think Todd Phillips had it in him. "The Hangover" is horrible comedy (to me) that seemed like a grade school mimicry of things like "Animal House" without the culture and timing, and the sequels were even worse.

But this was really entertaining. And I just finished the ultimate Superhero series for my tastes, that really got the Frank Miller cynicism down pat... "The Boys" on Amazon Prime. Please watch that.

One big misstep though where Tod Phillips (or the studio execs) pandered was in the conclusion of the "girlfriend" character. Up to that point it was deftly done, and classy, and I understood what was really going on (I already had guessed reality from her apparent character shallowness as well as some editing cues). But then they explicitly do a series of flashbacks to make sure the dumbest viewer-who-was-on-their-smart-phone-not-paying-attention would understand, and ruined it with clumsy heavy handed didactic emphasis.

Edit that out, and if some of the secondary characters had shown a bit more interesting depth and acting tic... and this would have been a perfect jewel. But I think it is a jewel of a movie.

Also, I was getting deja vu with things I have had a hand in on my little level. For example, a few years ago I helped a friend out with a micro-budget indie movie.... and.... well.... just listen to the song... and look at the style in which I put a "the end" on the last bit. Skip towards the end:

https://vimeo.com/ufoclub...ialeffects

*An example of keeping your secondary characters (no matter how brief you see them) infused with realistic grit and depth can be found in one moment of Blue Velvet. Yes, I know that movie is so wildly stylized that it almost seems cartoonish at times, but bear with me: In the scene where that protagonist is confronted by the dazed nude woman wandering up and interrupting his confrontation with the testosterone teenage jocks, one of those background jocks actually apologizes and shows some humanity. It's an incredible detail that I still remember clearly even though it's probably been 20 years since I've seen the film last.

onlyforaminute said:

ufoclub said:

Checked it out. It had an uphill battle with me at first because I've watched "Taxi Driver" back and forth since I was in grade school. But... it's only superficially like "Taxi Driver", a basic bone here, a small joint there, a tooth there, despite the meta-joke of casting DeNiro. So I didn't really try to hold it to Taxi Driver (again, it does have some basic similarities) In fact, I was also reminded of the crazy mom in "Requiem for a Dream" with some of the fantasy TV glory the character imagines for himself to escape reality. There were some visual reference throwbacks to 70's movies such as "The French Connection" and the audio of the classic Budweiser commercial that is a favorite detail in a moment in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". It’s interesting that I had just caught the remake of “Death Wish” on cable on Sunday as well. That is very much on theme.

To its initial detriment, as it started unfolding for me, I'd been watching the epic "Serpico" while making breakfast just the day before, this past Sunday. What that illustrated was that "Joker" had a ton of secondary contrived characters with no depth despite its ambition to be gritty and textured and harshly real*. That’s specifically characterization I was judging: It's a bit of a cheat to compare the set atmosphere and sense of environment of "Serpico" to “Joker” because "Serpico" was actually shot at the time... the 70's). But I reminded myself that it was a comic book movie, that the contrivance might be inherent or even an essential part of keeping it a DC movie... a graphic novel.

But, despite me being a bit narrow eyed to begin, the protagonist, the lead, is (as that actor can be) was so transcendent of all the shallow characterization around him, he just propelled it. And I'm the type of guy that pops on "3 Woman" because I love the soundtrack (talk about descent into psychological dysfunctional tragedy and destiny). But this held its ground. And it still kept itself in the "Batman" comic-book mode.

Then it simply started to get good. The plot became stronger. And scenes became grippingly interesting, gluing your eyes. For example when he goes to research his mother to find out whats true and what's not. Amazing and passionate. And the secondary character seemed more real!

And then the unveiling and the talk show scene are simply amazing! I first read The Dark Night graphic novel back in 1987, and it just opened up my eyes to edgy cynical possibility in comics. And it had the Joker go on David Letterman. I had always imagined that would have been the breakthrough Batman cinematic style that would sweep away the parody TV show from the 60’s. You can imagine how I’ve have hated on Tim Burton's Batman since I saw it on opening day. Well this movie went to that Frank Miller "Dark Knight" mode for me. Intense.

I didn't think Todd Phillips had it in him. "The Hangover" is horrible comedy (to me) that seemed like a grade school mimicry of things like "Animal House" without the culture and timing, and the sequels were even worse.

But this was really entertaining. And I just finished the ultimate Superhero series for my tastes, that really got the Frank Miller cynicism down pat... "The Boys" on Amazon Prime. Please watch that.

One big misstep though where Tod Phillips (or the studio execs) pandered was in the conclusion of the "girlfriend" character. Up to that point it was deftly done, and classy, and I understood what was really going on (I already had guessed reality from her apparent character shallowness as well as some editing cues). But then they explicitly do a series of flashbacks to make sure the dumbest viewer-who-was-on-their-smart-phone-not-paying-attention would understand, and ruined it with clumsy heavy handed didactic emphasis.

Edit that out, and if some of the secondary characters had shown a bit more interesting depth and acting tic... and this would have been a perfect jewel. But I think it is a jewel of a movie.

Also, I was getting deja vu with things I have had a hand in on my little level. For example, a few years ago I helped a friend out with a micro-budget indie movie.... and.... well.... just listen to the song... and look at the style in which I put a "the end" on the last bit. Skip towards the end:

https://vimeo.com/ufoclub...ialeffects

*An example of keeping your secondary characters (no matter how brief you see them) infused with realistic grit and depth can be found in one moment of Blue Velvet. Yes, I know that movie is so wildly stylized that it almost seems cartoonish at times, but bear with me: In the scene where that protagonist is confronted by the dazed nude woman wandering up and interrupting his confrontation with the testosterone teenage jocks, one of those background jocks actually apologizes and shows some humanity. It's an incredible detail that I still remember clearly even though it's probably been 20 years since I've seen the film last.

Wow, what an amazing coincidence. The similarities are definitely there.

Nice car, by the way. A friend of mine had that car in the late 80s, early 90s when you could get a vintage Mercedes for a good price. These days that exact model is very hard to find and costs ca. 50.000 euros.

.

I quite liked the Joker film but found it extremely sad and depressing, but in a good way. I had low expectations after reading some reviews and interviews but it was much better than expected. Too bad we won´t get to see this Joker again, and especially not up against Batman.

To me it felt like one of those "What if...." or "Alternate universe..." stories from DC or Marvel . It goes so strongly against the canon that it´s no wonder that we won´t see him again but who knows, I doubt that they´d refuse to cash in on this Joker considering how popular this incarnation turned out to be.

KoolEaze said:

ufoclub said:

Checked it out. It had an uphill battle with me at first because I've watched "Taxi Driver" back and forth since I was in grade school. But... it's only superficially like "Taxi Driver", a basic bone here, a small joint there, a tooth there, despite the meta-joke of casting DeNiro. So I didn't really try to hold it to Taxi Driver (again, it does have some basic similarities) In fact, I was also reminded of the crazy mom in "Requiem for a Dream" with some of the fantasy TV glory the character imagines for himself to escape reality. There were some visual reference throwbacks to 70's movies such as "The French Connection" and the audio of the classic Budweiser commercial that is a favorite detail in a moment in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". It’s interesting that I had just caught the remake of “Death Wish” on cable on Sunday as well. That is very much on theme.

To its initial detriment, as it started unfolding for me, I'd been watching the epic "Serpico" while making breakfast just the day before, this past Sunday. What that illustrated was that "Joker" had a ton of secondary contrived characters with no depth despite its ambition to be gritty and textured and harshly real*. That’s specifically characterization I was judging: It's a bit of a cheat to compare the set atmosphere and sense of environment of "Serpico" to “Joker” because "Serpico" was actually shot at the time... the 70's). But I reminded myself that it was a comic book movie, that the contrivance might be inherent or even an essential part of keeping it a DC movie... a graphic novel.

But, despite me being a bit narrow eyed to begin, the protagonist, the lead, is (as that actor can be) was so transcendent of all the shallow characterization around him, he just propelled it. And I'm the type of guy that pops on "3 Woman" because I love the soundtrack (talk about descent into psychological dysfunctional tragedy and destiny). But this held its ground. And it still kept itself in the "Batman" comic-book mode.

Then it simply started to get good. The plot became stronger. And scenes became grippingly interesting, gluing your eyes. For example when he goes to research his mother to find out whats true and what's not. Amazing and passionate. And the secondary character seemed more real!

And then the unveiling and the talk show scene are simply amazing! I first read The Dark Night graphic novel back in 1987, and it just opened up my eyes to edgy cynical possibility in comics. And it had the Joker go on David Letterman. I had always imagined that would have been the breakthrough Batman cinematic style that would sweep away the parody TV show from the 60’s. You can imagine how I’ve have hated on Tim Burton's Batman since I saw it on opening day. Well this movie went to that Frank Miller "Dark Knight" mode for me. Intense.

I didn't think Todd Phillips had it in him. "The Hangover" is horrible comedy (to me) that seemed like a grade school mimicry of things like "Animal House" without the culture and timing, and the sequels were even worse.

But this was really entertaining. And I just finished the ultimate Superhero series for my tastes, that really got the Frank Miller cynicism down pat... "The Boys" on Amazon Prime. Please watch that.

One big misstep though where Tod Phillips (or the studio execs) pandered was in the conclusion of the "girlfriend" character. Up to that point it was deftly done, and classy, and I understood what was really going on (I already had guessed reality from her apparent character shallowness as well as some editing cues). But then they explicitly do a series of flashbacks to make sure the dumbest viewer-who-was-on-their-smart-phone-not-paying-attention would understand, and ruined it with clumsy heavy handed didactic emphasis.

Edit that out, and if some of the secondary characters had shown a bit more interesting depth and acting tic... and this would have been a perfect jewel. But I think it is a jewel of a movie.

Also, I was getting deja vu with things I have had a hand in on my little level. For example, a few years ago I helped a friend out with a micro-budget indie movie.... and.... well.... just listen to the song... and look at the style in which I put a "the end" on the last bit. Skip towards the end:

https://vimeo.com/ufoclub...ialeffects

*An example of keeping your secondary characters (no matter how brief you see them) infused with realistic grit and depth can be found in one moment of Blue Velvet. Yes, I know that movie is so wildly stylized that it almost seems cartoonish at times, but bear with me: In the scene where that protagonist is confronted by the dazed nude woman wandering up and interrupting his confrontation with the testosterone teenage jocks, one of those background jocks actually apologizes and shows some humanity. It's an incredible detail that I still remember clearly even though it's probably been 20 years since I've seen the film last.

Wow, what an amazing coincidence. The similarities are definitely there.

Nice car, by the way. A friend of mine had that car in the late 80s, early 90s when you could get a vintage Mercedes for a good price. These days that exact model is very hard to find and costs ca. 50.000 euros.

.

I quite liked the Joker film but found it extremely sad and depressing, but in a good way. I had low expectations after reading some reviews and interviews but it was much better than expected. Too bad we won´t get to see this Joker again, and especially not up against Batman.

To me it felt like one of those "What if...." or "Alternate universe..." stories from DC or Marvel . It goes so strongly against the canon that it´s no wonder that we won´t see him again but who knows, I doubt that they´d refuse to cash in on this Joker considering how popular this incarnation turned out to be.

what are some of the ways it goes against canon?

ufoclub said:

KoolEaze said:

Wow, what an amazing coincidence. The similarities are definitely there.

Nice car, by the way. A friend of mine had that car in the late 80s, early 90s when you could get a vintage Mercedes for a good price. These days that exact model is very hard to find and costs ca. 50.000 euros.

.

I quite liked the Joker film but found it extremely sad and depressing, but in a good way. I had low expectations after reading some reviews and interviews but it was much better than expected. Too bad we won´t get to see this Joker again, and especially not up against Batman.

To me it felt like one of those "What if...." or "Alternate universe..." stories from DC or Marvel . It goes so strongly against the canon that it´s no wonder that we won´t see him again but who knows, I doubt that they´d refuse to cash in on this Joker considering how popular this incarnation turned out to be.

what are some of the ways it goes against canon?

The name, the whole origin story basically, the age difference between Bruce Wayne and Arthur Fleck/Joker. I noticed some other differences while watching it but it´s past midnight here and I don´t remember them off the top of my head right now.

It´s more of an Arthur Fleck story than a proper Joker movie but I liked it.

This story would make a great origin story in the graphic novels. I really liked the Thomas Wayne bits in the story, even though they had very little to do with the graphic novel versions of the Joker.

KoolEaze said:

I quite liked the Joker film but found it extremely sad and depressing, but in a good way. I had low expectations after reading some reviews and interviews but it was much better than expected. Too bad we won´t get to see this Joker again, and especially not up against Batman.

To me it felt like one of those "What if...." or "Alternate universe..." stories from DC or Marvel . It goes so strongly against the canon that it´s no wonder that we won´t see him again but who knows, I doubt that they´d refuse to cash in on this Joker considering how popular this incarnation turned out to be.

DC: Elseworlds

Marvel: What if...?

I love for WB to keep making Elseworlds movies, just one off movies about any character.

JorisE73 said:

KoolEaze said:

I quite liked the Joker film but found it extremely sad and depressing, but in a good way. I had low expectations after reading some reviews and interviews but it was much better than expected. Too bad we won´t get to see this Joker again, and especially not up against Batman.

To me it felt like one of those "What if...." or "Alternate universe..." stories from DC or Marvel . It goes so strongly against the canon that it´s no wonder that we won´t see him again but who knows, I doubt that they´d refuse to cash in on this Joker considering how popular this incarnation turned out to be.

DC: Elseworlds

Marvel: What if...?

I love for WB to keep making Elseworlds movies, just one off movies about any character.

I think that that´s a good idea for those who are already a bit familiar with the concept of Elseworlds or What If.... But it might confuse the "casual" fans or moviegoers who are not familiar with that idea.They often expect the stories to be at least somewhat close to the original story....even though, of course, the original stories have always changed a bit over the idecades.

.

At some point I´ve lost track of all the different continuities and elseworlds and whatnot in the DC universe.

I´m oldschool....all I know is Earth 1 and Earth 2, and even that is a big mess today.

KoolEaze said:

JorisE73 said:

DC: Elseworlds

Marvel: What if...?

I love for WB to keep making Elseworlds movies, just one off movies about any character.

I think that that´s a good idea for those who are already a bit familiar with the concept of Elseworlds or What If.... But it might confuse the "casual" fans or moviegoers who are not familiar with that idea.They often expect the stories to be at least somewhat close to the original story....even though, of course, the original stories have always changed a bit over the idecades.

.

At some point I´ve lost track of all the different continuities and elseworlds and whatnot in the DC universe.

I´m oldschool....all I know is Earth 1 and Earth 2, and even that is a big mess today.

All on-screen stories are What If?/Elseworlds universes of course. Marvel has openly acknowledged this by naming the MCU Earth 199999. I agree though that it would be confusing to the casual viewer to label a film an alternate universe of an already alternate universe.

sexton said:

KoolEaze said:

I think that that´s a good idea for those who are already a bit familiar with the concept of Elseworlds or What If.... But it might confuse the "casual" fans or moviegoers who are not familiar with that idea.They often expect the stories to be at least somewhat close to the original story....even though, of course, the original stories have always changed a bit over the idecades.

.

At some point I´ve lost track of all the different continuities and elseworlds and whatnot in the DC universe.

I´m oldschool....all I know is Earth 1 and Earth 2, and even that is a big mess today.

All on-screen stories are What If?/Elseworlds universes of course. Marvel has openly acknowledged this by naming the MCU Earth 199999. I agree though that it would be confusing to the casual viewer to label a film an alternate universe of an already alternate universe.

Oh, I really didn´t know that.

I stopped following the comic books in the late 80s, early 90s. I did still read them occasionally but I wasn´t a hardcore fan anymore,so I thought the movies were more or less based on the comic book continuity.