EmmaMcG said:

Sure...
Do you also really care this much whenever you are buying clothing, shoes or whatever and are indirectly supporting child labour, child prostitution, human trafficking and, yes also, paedophilia?

Neversin.

Neversin said:

EmmaMcG said:

He should be put to death for being a child molesting scumbag so the idea of him earning royalties just doesn't sit right with me. If that report is accurate, then it makes the situation a little better but I still don't like his music being widely promoted. He may not earn royalties from this but his record sales will likely increase due to the extra promotion.

Sure... Do you also really care this much whenever you are buying clothing, shoes or whatever and are indirectly supporting child labour, child prostitution, human trafficking and, yes also, paedophilia? Neversin.

Pretty good point.
I'm a huge MJ fan and the last year I've been hearing these discussions if it is still ok to play or listen to MJ after the whole Leaving Neverland bullshit. And honestly I don;t care.
Even if there was 100% proof of MJ being a pedofile I would still buy and listen to his music. The music is still good and doesn't mean when you buy it you;'re supporting his lifestyle but just his music.

Neversin said:

Yes. And if you'd like to argue further about the rights and wrongs of supporting a convicted child molester, we can do that in another thread or you can orgNote me. But how about we keep this thread just to talking about the Joker movie, OK?

EmmaMcG said:

I'm not here to argue... I just think you're full of shit regarding your comment...

Pathetically enough, WB is looking into removing the song from the movie just to appease to the useless and weak snowflakes and other whiny fucknecks...

Neversin.
[Edited 10/15/19 1:01am]

Neversin said:

Is English your first language?

EmmaMcG said:

No... And, obviously, it isn't yours either... But I don't see the relevance of this other than just to try and mock and divert from your comments... Fake outrage and hypocrisy is the norm these days...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

I could tell you were struggling, lol.

Where is the "fake outrage"? For that matter, where is the regular "outrage"? What about my comments suggests "outrage" to you? I didn't even detract a point in my review for the use of the song in the movie. All I did was question why Gary Glitter is still being paid for his work despite being locked up for being a sick fuck. But then it was brought up that he may not be earning royalties after all. Fine. It's still strange that they used his music to begin with but then again, all of the marketing for the movie seems to be centred around how "controversial" it is so perhaps this was just another ploy to get people talking. And, in fairness to WB, it worked. Because here we are still discussing it.

Hardly what I'd call "outrage" though but maybe when you get a better grasp of the English language you'll be able to communicate in a much more coherent and civil manner.

EmmaMcG said:

Hardly what I'd call "outrage" though but maybe when you get a better grasp of the English language you'll be able to communicate in a much more coherent and civil manner.

His English is much more coherent and better then mine but I think he means it in a general way.
But this guy really hates everyone here I think, he's this way with everyone

I went to the movie again yesterday and the moment he stops taking hs pills/doesn't have acces to them is when the whole Tragedy/Comedy aspect kicks in and honestly it becomes wquite funny when looking at it again.
I think this is a really solid movie with a great story, I hear a lot of complaints of people saying that the story is the weakest thing about the movie but I think its really strong.
It's my favorite movie of the year so far! Next up is Knives Out, I know a lot of peopel hate Rian Johnson for The Last JEdI which I thought was awesome except for the casino planet bit so I'm really looking forward to that one.

JorisE73 said:

Yeah I'm just having a bit of fun. I don't mind Neversin. He's always good for a laugh.

Funnily enough, I also went to see it again yesterday. And this time I got to bring my daughter. I know the manager of our local cinema so he fixed it for us so that she got to see it. It's "16" rated over here and my daughter is only 7. But she really liked it, which surprised me. Although she had a different opinion on the character of the Joker to me. Whereas I see the character as kind of sympathetic, she just seen him as a straight up villain. And when we were talking about it afterwards she raised a good point. I was talking about how, due to his mental illness, a lot of people didn't listen to him and ignored him. Even his psychiatrist. Like when he tells her that he wanted to be a comedian and that he'd told her before and she said that he never told her that. And there's a few other scenes like that too, where people don't acknowledge things he's previously said. But my daughter had a different interpretation. She said that maybe he didn't tell his psychiatrist about wanting to be a comedian and he just thought he did. Similar to how he thought he was going out with that woman but it turns out it was all in his head. He's delusional and part of that delusion was that he perceives the whole world as being against him in some way. As in he makes a victim out of himself to justify his own actions. I thought that was a pretty good point for a 7 year old to make. Perhaps she's right. In fact, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

As I said before, it's a very good movie that is perhaps better a second time. Still too many slow motion dancing scenes though

EmmaMcG said:

You took a 7 year old to this?

rdhull said:

Yes. Despite what the marketing would have you believe, it's quite tame. There's only one scene of excessive violence and most of that is framed so that it takes place just off screen. I seen much worse stuff when I was younger than she is.

Besides, she's smart enough to know that anything she sees in movies and TV is not real. After all, her mother is an actress.

EmmaMcG said:

rdhull said:

You took a 7 year old to this?

Yes. Despite what the marketing would have you believe, it's quite tame. There's only one scene of excessive violence and most of that is framed so that it takes place just off screen. I seen much worse stuff when I was younger than she is. Besides, she's smart enough to know that anything she sees in movies and TV is not real. After all, her mother is an actress.

That movie is inappropriate for a 7 year old regardless of all those excuses.

rdhull said:

EmmaMcG said:

rdhull said: Yes. Despite what the marketing would have you believe, it's quite tame. There's only one scene of excessive violence and most of that is framed so that it takes place just off screen. I seen much worse stuff when I was younger than she is. Besides, she's smart enough to know that anything she sees in movies and TV is not real. After all, her mother is an actress.

That movie is inappropriate for a 7 year old regardless of all those excuses.

That is fucked up!

ufoclub said:

?

rdhull said:

Who the fuck are you to decide what is inappropriate for my child? One of my favourite movies when I was her age was Robocop. And that was FAR more violent than The Joker. I used to watch all kinds of violent movies when I was a kid. The Terminator, Rambo, Commando, The Evil Dead. The list goes on. They never had any impact on me. Because I knew they were only movies. My daughter is a smart girl. She knows how movies are made. She's been on a few movie sets. She doesn't get upset over seeing fake violence on a movie screen. She never tries to replicate what she sees. She never swears and actually chastises me when I let the odd "f" word out. In other words, she's not a moron living a sheltered life. She wanted to see The Joker because she loves Batman (the animated series and movies) and after seeing it for myself first I determined that there was nothing in this movie that would frighten or disturb her because I know her limits. And after seeing the movie for herself, she enjoyed it. The one violent scene in the movie had no impact on her whatsoever other than it confirmed to her that the Joker was the villain she assumed he was.

EmmaMcG said:

rdhull said:

That movie is inappropriate for a 7 year old regardless of all those excuses.

Who the fuck are you to decide what is inappropriate for my child? One of my favourite movies when I was her age was Robocop. And that was FAR more violent than The Joker. I used to watch all kinds of violent movies when I was a kid. The Terminator, Rambo, Commando, The Evil Dead. The list goes on. They never had any impact on me. Because I knew they were only movies. My daughter is a smart girl. She knows how movies are made. She's been on a few movie sets. She doesn't get upset over seeing fake violence on a movie screen. She never tries to replicate what she sees. She never swears and actually chastises me when I let the odd "f" word out. In other words, she's not a moron living a sheltered life. She wanted to see The Joker because she loves Batman (the animated series and movies) and after seeing it for myself first I determined that there was nothing in this movie that would frighten or disturb her because I know her limits. And after seeing the movie for herself, she enjoyed it. The one violent scene in the movie had no impact on her whatsoever other than it confirmed to her that the Joker was the villain she assumed he was.

Just throwing it out there, but I am not so sure 7 year olds actually know the difference like you suggest. The stabbing in the eye scene and shooting someone in the head scene is a little extreme, but I don't know your kid though and couldn't care less as my parents took me to all kinds of movies, but whatevs.

rdhull said:

ufoclub said:

That is fucked up!

?

Taking a 7 year old to see The Joker.

EmmaMcG said:

I get that your child is.. precocious. But there are several onscreen instances of violence that simply are not appropriate for children to see, no matter how advanced they are. It’s odd how you are adultifying her. And why would you subject your child to that movie regardless of how you feel she is “ahead of the curve”?

rdhull said:

I didn't subject her to anything. She wanted to see it. I seen it first to make sure it was OK and I don't see anything in the movie that is inappropriate. Certainly nothing she hasn't seen before. The stabbing in the eye scene is not that violent. You don't actually see much. It's kind of like the chainsaw scene in Scarface or the shower scene in Psycho. Most of the actual violence happens off screen. It's nowhere near as violent as the guy in Total Recall having his arms chopped off or that scene in Kill Bill where The Bride kills the Crazy 88s. Two movies my daughter loves. Especially Kill Bill. Violence in movies doesn't bother her. She knows how it works. And I know her limits. She doesn't like scary movies. So I don't bring her to see scary movies. It's not a case of being precocious or anything else. It's just that most instances of violence in movies have no impact on her. Like I said, she loved the movie. If she had any issues with it then she would tell me.

ufoclub said:

Well you don't know her so maybe just mind your own business, yeah?

EmmaMcG said:

I have issues with you as a mother. And it’s ironic that you made a tirade (justified) about the Gary Glitter song in the movie due to him being a pedophile yet you took your 7 year old daughter to this movie. And use you being an actress saying she understands it’s all dress up and make believe to still subject her to this movie. You’re basically saying your raising a female Sheldon. Something is fishy about this whole thing now that I think about it.

EmmaMcG said:

You’re the one who held a banner telling us you took her to see it. Mind your business? Don’t put yours in the streets if you only want nicely nice comments

I’ll end this by asking, what kind of mother takes their 7 year old to see Joker?

rdhull said:

I’ll end this by asking, what kind of mother takes their 7 year old to see Joker?

Well, although its prob and eventually not my business.... I had a couple of drinks before seeing the film as it was a long morning. Once I got in the theater I said to my pal "Whaa? whoa? who the hell takes a kid to see this damn movie?" (there were some older folks and a 6-8 year old in front of us)... She later said I was probably loud enough to have been heard (the drinks) but eh.. I don't care. I do find it odd that some people think its appropriate, but 6-8 is better than the other times I've been into places where some nimrod numbfuck brings in a toddler that talks and yacks throughout a film... Worst case was seeing that during a Resident Evil film. it's just rude and probably screwing up the kids head. But y'know.. in this era where "binging" is a completely accepted activity for "recreation" I can imagine tons of people stare at screens with their children. To the posters credit she's always come off as a sharp one. Kinda depends where the apple falls. oh and I had forgotten about the kid when the film was over and I muttered "God, that was a piece of shit." a well lit, polished CINEMATIC p.o.s.

2045RadicalMattZ said:

I’m guessing most of those people who took a six or seven-year-old thought it was gonna be a regular comic book movie but the poster has already seen the movie and still thought it was appropriate to take her seven-year-old daughter to see it with her

rdhull said:

EmmaMcG said:

Well you don't know her so maybe just mind your own business, yeah?

You’re the one who held a banner telling us you took her to see it. Mind your business? Don’t put yours in the streets if you only want nicely nice comments

Essentially one is out in public here in the little old internet begging for interaction by posting.

ufoclub said:

rdhull said:

EmmaMcG said: You’re the one who held a banner telling us you took her to see it. Mind your business? Don’t put yours in the streets if you only want nicely nice comments

Essentially one is out in public here in the little old internet begging for interaction by posting.

Basically. And I think she may be trolling. They way she described this etc is just to fantastical.

rdhull said:

I’m guessing most of those people who took a six or seven-year-old thought it was gonna be a regular comic book movie

It's R rated though and many parents have taken children to R movies for decades now. I haven't seen Joker but it can't be any more violent than the video games kids play like Grand Theft Auto & Mortal Kombat. In GTA you run over people and pick up prostitutes. Parents or other adults are likely the ones buying the game discs, since they're kinda costly. With games the player is actively participating in them unlike a movie. Not everybody censors what their kids watch or listen to. I hear kids singing lyrics from rap hits, some doing the cursing.

MickyDolenz said:

rdhull said:

I’m guessing most of those people who took a six or seven-year-old thought it was gonna be a regular comic book movie

It's R rated though and many parents have taken children to R movies for decades now. I haven't seen Joker but it can't be any more violent than the video games kids play like Grand Theft Auto & Mortal Kombat. In GTA you run over people and pick up prostitutes. Parents or other adults are likely the ones buying the game discs, since they're kinda costly. With games the player is actively participating in them unlike a movie. Not everybody censors what their kids watch or listen to. I hear kids singing lyrics from rap hits, some doing the cursing.

Yeah. They are buying GTA and rap music for 7 year olds

lol @ people rationilizing taking a 7 year old to see Joker

...

[Edited 10/16/19 17:08pm]