Callum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer and the EFAPshere - Objective discussion about not-Channel Awesome featuring Rags, Southpaw and more!

[off meds / online]

Joker is honestly a good movie and a good introduction for more deeper films, people like Mauler and that redneck who got mad about it getting snubbed treat it like it's the holy grail of movies and that there is no movie like it.

Probably because they're so used to comic movie blockbusters. If you spend all your time with those, Joker probably seems like Citizen Kane to you.

 

[Idiotron]

Probably because they're so used to comic movie blockbusters. If you spend all your time with those, Joker probably seems like Citizen Kane to you.

Yeah. I've noticed that when people tell him that all MCU movies are the same (because they kind of are, weirdo in a suit fights a weirdo in a suit, the package is different but there's a very similar formula to all of them), MauLer heavily disagrees because, when you only watch one kind of movies (dumb blockbusters), you'll notice the most minute differences between them that don't really matter.
Something like Joker which is so different from the usual comic book garbage (doesn't even have weirdos in suits fighting each other) would obviously blow his mind.

Hopefully, Joker is like a gateway drug to real movies for these people.

 

[BR55]

Probably because they're so used to comic movie blockbusters. If you spend all your time with those, Joker probably seems like Citizen Kane to you.

I'm convinced half the reason people like Rags and Mauler went so nuts for Joker is merely that the "right" people were offended by it.*
When you get down to it that means Mauler isn't that different from someone like MovieBob gushing over Captain Marvel because it makes basement-dwelling manbabies angry.
Of course, liking or disliking a film because it's surface-level content either offends or validates your pathetic Culture War autism is utterly ridiculous but do you really expect any better from Mauler and his dickriders?
*The other half being that their cinematic pallets are so basic bitch and normie that anything with even the slightest hint of higher artistic aspirations looks like solid gold.

 

[Xerxes IX]

I'm convinced half the reason people like Rags and Mauler went so nuts for Joker is merely that the "right" people were offended by it.*
When you get down to it that means Mauler isn't that different from someone like MovieBob gushing over Captain Marvel because it makes basement-dwelling manbabies angry.
Of course, liking or disliking a film because it's surface-level content either offends or validates your pathetic Culture War autism is utterly ridiculous but do you really expect any better from Mauler and his dickriders?
*The other half being that their cinematic pallets are so basic bitch and normie that anything with even the slightest hint of higher artistic aspirations looks like solid gold.

My thoughts exactly. For all MauLer's friends and fans gush about how objective he is this is the dude who stans for the MCU unless the movie has politics he doesn't like.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

Yeah. I've noticed that when people tell him that all MCU movies are the same (because they kind of are, weirdo in a suit fights a weirdo in a suit, the package is different but there's a very similar formula to all of them), MauLer heavily disagrees because, when you only watch one kind of movies (dumb blockbusters), you'll notice the most minute differences between them that don't really matter.
Something like Joker which is so different from the usual comic book garbage (doesn't even have weirdos in suits fighting each other) would obviously blow his mind.

Hopefully, Joker is like a gateway drug to real movies for these people.

Doubt it given this redneck was bitching about Parasite winning over Joker which is considered a real film and only watched it after getting called out

 

[Shieldman]

Yeah. I've noticed that when people tell him that all MCU movies are the same (because they kind of are, weirdo in a suit fights a weirdo in a suit, the package is different but there's a very similar formula to all of them), MauLer heavily disagrees because, when you only watch one kind of movies (dumb blockbusters), you'll notice the most minute differences between them that don't really matter.

There was a stream they did with YMS, and he casually dismisses the MCU. Mauler didn't react well.
Also to be fair, I think he does watch other movies, but he a. only picks easy targets, and b. only picks what brings clicks.

 

[Lensherr]

My thoughts exactly. For all MauLer's friends and fans gush about how objective he is this is the dude who stans for the MCU unless the movie has politics he doesn't like.

I for one would love to see him try and apply his left-brained, plot-obsessed analytical techniques to something even remotely challenging and subtext heavy (think There Will Be Blood or Aguirre, The Wrath Of God).

 

[Xerxes IX]

I for one would love to see him try and apply his left-brained, plot-obsessed analytical techniques to something even remotely challenging and subtext heavy (think There Will Be Blood or Aguirre, The Wrath Of God).

He comes off as the kind of guy who would have bitched about high school English class and how critical analysis of subtext is a waste of time because sometimes the curtain is just fucking blue.

 

[ColdOnes]

I for one would love to see him try and apply his left-brained, plot-obsessed analytical techniques to something even remotely challenging and subtext heavy (think There Will Be Blood or Aguirre, The Wrath Of God).

I want to see MauLer actually tackle movies that don't necessary have the most straightforward narratives like any movie from David Lynch. While I liked Joker, it's themes and subtext is spelled out for you.

 

[Osmotic_Cereal]

I want to see MauLer actually tackle movies that don't necessary have the most straightforward narratives like any movie from David Lynch. While I liked Joker, it's themes and subtext is spelled out for you.

I remember one of his parts on his dark souls 2 video where I believe he criticized the story and lore being unclear and "unfinished" (which was the intention for the series). He then goes on and say that it is poor because of it since he likes "well told narratives." I doubt he's going to enjoy sublet narrative from deeper films because it seems he doesn't take the time to investigate beyond the surface level on what he likes, which I find a bit ironic. He's just a dude who likes wide appeal media (which is fine) but wants to come off as this deep critic who knows what is objectively "good."

 

[biscuitscilia]

I want to see MauLer actually tackle movies that don't necessary have the most straightforward narratives like any movie from David Lynch. While I liked Joker, it's themes and subtext is spelled out for you.

Of course it is, that's why a lot of people liked it.
It's why they hate Taxi Driver, that film was anything but straightforward. But that's why people keep going back to it, you can't just read Travis Bickle the same way you can read Arthur Fleck. Travis was designed to be an aimless psychopath whose anger explodes in violence against the people he thinks are responsible for the state of New York and even his own life.
That's done a lot more subtly than Joker's very clear allusions to Occupy Wall Street where Arthur's motivations are very heavy handed and signaled to the audience almost all the time. He's a freak, society beats down people with mental problems, he's mocked for trying to achieve his dreams and ambitions, the high-class elites are abusive pieces of shit, the people he looks up to are hypocrites, etc.
It's funny how Taxi Driver has Travis narrate his thoughts that he writes in his book and yet it's still ambiguous what his true motivations are.
I think the reason why they don't like Taxi Driver is because people keep comparing Joker unfavorably to it and so they'd rather pretend it's a worse film just to be contrarian and shut down comparisons to it.

 

[Raging Capybara]

Travis was designed to be an aimless psychopath whose anger explodes in violence against the people he thinks are responsible for the state of New York and even his own life.

And why exactly is this not straight forward?

Both movies are pretty obvious.

 

[biscuitscilia]

And why exactly is this not straight forward?

Both movies are pretty obvious.

It comes down to how the films treat them. Travis hates the degeneracy and decay of New York but society never beats down on him, it's more that his own delusions and discontent drive him to commit his actions. He's lonely, he has no social skills and that makes him misinterpret the things around him. He doesn't understand politics but he thinks that if he kills the Senator and Presidential candidate, Palpatine, it'll somehow lead to New York becoming clean again. It's never hammered onto the audience how we should feel about Travis and what Travis exactly thinks. His actions are his own.
In Joker, Arthur is a victim of circumstance and the film heavily empahsizes that by showing how society beats down on him. It's never subtle about it. The film even states its message a few times, most notably the therapy session "No one gives a shit about you," there's a clear "us vs them." But Travis thinks everyone is shit. He doesn't take sides on anything except for his affections for a beautiful woman working for Palpatine and of course, he's shown to have a morality when he saves a 12-year old prostitute, Jodie Foster's Iris, in the climax of the film.

 

[DisaffectedDude]

Yeah. The first hour or so is literally everyone and everything beating up on Arthur. The youtuber 'Filmento' pointed out how a lot of films use the 'save the kitten' trope to get us to see someone as good but Joker used 'kick the puppy' trope to make us feel bad for Arthur. Hence why when he shoots those wallstreet brats most of us aren't horrified by him being a psychopath, but are instead on his side - even if we think he overdid it. Because we just spend the last hour watching the film shit on Arthur relentlessly in every scene, so we felt less like 'WTF ARE YOU DOING' and more like 'FINALLY HE REACTED AND STOOD UP FOR HIMSELF!'

Arthur is also a very 'reactive' character instead of an active one. Like, Travis learns where he can buy weapons and then makes the decision to go buy said weapons and plan to use them like a sociopath. Arthur, on the otherhand, gets literally handed a gun by someone, then gets fired because of said gun & blamed by the dude who sold him the gun, and then is forced into a situation where he's getting his ass kicked and needs to defend himself.

Plus, Travis is just some anti-social weirdo we get to observe. We're never really put in a position where the film goes 'See he does this because of X', instead all we see is him 'do X' without an explanation as to why half the time. Arthur, though, is some downtrodden mentally ill loser we're meant to feel sorry for and observe.

Also, both films decided to shoot the entire film from their protagonists perspective except for one scene. In Taxi Driver that scene not from Travis' perspective is one between Jodi Foster and Harvey Keitel to expand our understanding of their relationship. In Joker the one scene is Bruce Wayne's parents getting iced, because Batman.

I mean, TAXI DRIVER isn't the most complicated film to figure out or analyze, but you do have to do your own work and pay attention - maybe watch it a few times to understand it fully. JOKER is watered-down scorcese for the comicbookfilm-obsessed masses where every message is directly explained by one of the characters in the movie w/o a hint of subtext. I get why people like it, but chuds like EFAP crew mainly like it because of the culture war/it upsets the 'right people'.

Also, this reminds me of the Jenny Nicholson response where she mentions how the film was kind of over-the-top in how cruel it was to Arthur specifically (she's not wrong) and the spergboys spent like 30 minutes discussing FBI crime statistics and how sheltered she is.

 

[BR55]

Yeah. The first hour or so is literally everyone and everything beating up on Arthur. The youtuber 'Filmento' pointed out how a lot of films use the 'save the kitten' trope to get us to see someone as good but Joker used 'kick the puppy' trope to make us feel bad for Arthur. Hence why when he shoots those wallstreet brats most of us aren't horrified by him being a psychopath, but are instead on his side - even if we think he overdid it. Because we just spend the last hour watching the film shit on Arthur relentlessly in every scene, so we felt less like 'WTF ARE YOU DOING' and more like 'FINALLY HE REACTED AND STOOD UP FOR HIMSELF!'

Arthur is also a very 'reactive' character instead of an active one. Like, Travis learns where he can buy weapons and then makes the decision to go buy said weapons and plan to use them like a sociopath. Arthur, on the otherhand, gets literally handed a gun by someone, then gets fired because of said gun & blamed by the dude who sold him the gun, and then is forced into a situation where he's getting his ass kicked and needs to defend himself.

Plus, Travis is just some anti-social weirdo we get to observe. We're never really put in a position where the film goes 'See he does this because of X', instead all we see is him 'do X' without an explanation as to why half the time. Arthur, though, is some downtrodden mentally ill loser we're meant to feel sorry for and observe.

Also, both films decided to shoot the entire film from their protagonists perspective except for one scene. In Taxi Driver that scene not from Travis' perspective is one between Jodi Foster and Harvey Keitel to expand our understanding of their relationship. In Joker the one scene is Bruce Wayne's parents getting iced, because Batman.

I mean, TAXI DRIVER isn't the most complicated film to figure out or analyze, but you do have to do your own work and pay attention - maybe watch it a few times to understand it fully. JOKER is watered-down scorcese for the comicbookfilm-obsessed masses where every message is directly explained by one of the characters in the movie w/o a hint of subtext. I get why people like it, but chuds like EFAP crew mainly like it because of the culture war/it upsets the 'right people'.

Also, this reminds me of the Jenny Nicholson response where she mentions how the film was kind of over-the-top in how cruel it was to Arthur specifically (she's not wrong) and the spergboys spent like 30 minutes discussing FBI crime statistics and how sheltered she is.

I suppose in a meta sense Joker and Taxi Driver represent their respective decades quite well.
Taxi Driver is an original work by an auteur director.
Joker is tied to an existing capeshit IP owned by a megacorporation.
Taxi Driver is a product of the cynical and lost 1970s.
Joker is a product of the nihilistic and hostile 2010s.
I think Taxi Driver is very agnostic about Travis. It neither lionizes nor condemns him. You're essentially given a snapshot of a broken and lost man and the world he inhabits.
Joker meanwhile just dumps shit on Arthur and aside from a token "becoming a sociopathic anarchist isn't a good thing" message expects you to sympathize with him and hate society for driving him over the edge.
In the 2010s the victim is lionized and it's everyone else's fault for being so awful.
In the 1970s both Travis and society are flawed and Travis's plan to kill Palantine thinking that will miraculously make everything better is the result of his own broken mindset.
Now how does this all relate to Mauler?
Well it's no surprise that Callum and his MCU loving buddies would prefer the film with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face and none of that interpretation and ambiguity that Taxi Driver has.
Triggering the SJW's and "We live in a society" memes are just the icing on the cake.
Owning the Libs, getting to feel like a big brain intellectual, easy to digest themes and symbolism and all of that wrapped up in one nice baby's first real movie package.
What's not to like if you're our beloved Long Man?

 

[off meds / online]

@Bill Kilerman you okay dude?

 

[Rice Is Ready]

@Bill Kilerman you okay dude?

View attachment 1247071
View attachment 1247072
View attachment 1247073
View attachment 1247074
View attachment 1247075

Don't shit up the thread with your lovers quarrel. Go cry on his profile wall because he negged you faggot.

 

[off meds / online]

Don't shit up the thread with your lovers quarrel. Go cry on his profile wall because he negged you faggot.

???

I'm bringing it up because he did this to nearly every post on the last few pages of the thread in the span of about 5 minutes. cry about it.

 

[Rice Is Ready]

???

I'm bringing it up because he did this to nearly every post on the last few pages of the thread in the span of about 5 minutes. cry about it.

You're the one crying about it though. Post it on his wall if you care so much. Stop littering. They're literally stickers you baby.

 

[off meds / online]

You're the one crying about it though. Post it on his wall if you care so much. Stop littering. They're literally stickers you baby.

>has not once posted in this thread
>comes here specifically to chimp out at me
>says I'm the one shitting up the thread for pointing out an assmad fanboy who has pages of site activity of just putting frowny faces on mean posts about long man

this'll be my last response, but I'm sorry I had the audacity to say I doubted that you had COVID. thanks for nice tits in pfp tho.