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

[Raging Capybara]

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.

Joker imagines things, maybe he was never beaten up in the subway, maybe he never killed those 3 guys and the perpetrator was a different person whom we never see during the movie. He is crazy because he was abused by his mother. The same way she was delusional enough to think she had a case with a rich and famous man, Arthur pretty much could have similar delusions.

We know for a fact that he never had a girlfriend but he believed that anyway, he only realized that was a delusion when he was confronted by that lie.

 

[HavaLottaTimetoSpare]

Honestly, my biggest bugbear with the film is that it can only exist in a bubble. Imagine this version of the Joker fighting Batman, or creating Harley Quinn. It's a fine film on it's own, and I don't demand all comic films be in franchises or in continuity with one another, but Joker's whole purpose is to fight Batman, and this one can't do that without being fundamentally re-written.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The most interesting thing about Joker in my opinion is that there isn't really a single side. Every aspect of the film that shows that society is bad goes both ways - The rich and the poor are scummy, the mental health even when its there is low quality, police is either non-existent or doesn't conduct itself in a way that assures victims, etc. While it's true especially for Arthur it's not that alien to anyone living in urban hellholes.

Saying the film promotes a single side ignores this and reduces the film to advocating a tired political side - The only solution for Arthur is moving as far away from the city into some small community where he'll at least have the option of appealing to the locals.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

The most interesting thing about Joker in my opinion is that there isn't really a single side. Every aspect of the film that shows that society is bad goes both ways - The rich and the poor are scummy, the mental health even when its there is low quality, police is either non-existent or doesn't conduct itself in a way that assures victims, etc. While it's true especially for Arthur it's not that alien to anyone living in urban hellholes.

Saying the film promotes a single side ignores this and reduces the film to advocating a tired political side - The only solution for Arthur is moving as far away from the city into some small community where he'll at least have the option of appealing to the locals.

That's true but there are people like Mauler who interpret the film as being some anti-SJW movie and his butt-buddies think this is the first movie to do that because they shrug off most Scorsese films thinking that they are cool and smart for being contrarian.

 

[biscuitscilia]

Joker imagines things, maybe he was never beaten up in the subway, maybe he never killed those 3 guys and the perpetrator was a different person whom we never see during the movie. He is crazy because he was abused by his mother. The same way she was delusional enough to think she had a case with a rich and famous man, Arthur pretty much could have similar delusions.

We know for a fact that he never had a girlfriend but he believed that anyway, he only realized that was a delusion when he was confronted by that lie.

No, if he imagined it then the film would have heavily signaled it because of the girlfriend scene. The girlfriend scene had a moment where the director showed she was never there instead of just having it be that one dialogue exchange. If he couldn't do that scene subtly then there's no way the rest of the film was in his head. That might have been the intention of the director to have it be ambiguous but I find it incredibly unlikely that he suddenly learned subtly and only expressed it in that subway scene. I'm 100% sure the subway scene happened.
Edit: I just remembered, the protestors were wearing Clown masks throughout the film because the news reported the murderer was a guy dressed as a clown.
So yeah, it happened.

 

[Raging Capybara]

No, if he imagined it then the film would have heavily signaled it because of the girlfriend scene. The girlfriend scene had a moment where the director showed she was never there instead of just having it be that one dialogue exchange. If he couldn't do that scene subtly then there's no way the rest of the film was in his head. That might have been the intention of the director to have it be ambiguous but I find it incredibly unlikely that he suddenly learned subtly and only expressed it in that subway scene. I'm 100% sure the subway scene happened.

But you can't prove that. It's really just your interpretation.

Your opinion is biased, you believe this and now is trying to find every single detail possible to back up your opinion. Your argument is no different than the ones used by Mauler. That's what we were all calling here "pseudo-objective".

Maybe that's the whole point of the film, to fuck with you with false cues? To plant false perspectives on purpose, it can be absolutely anything.

 

[biscuitscilia]

But you can't prove that. It's really just your interpretation.

Your opinion is biased, you believe this and now is trying to find every single detail possible to back up your opinion. Your argument is no different than the ones used by Mauler. That's what we were all calling here "pseudo-objective".

Maybe that's the whole point of the film, to fuck with you with false cues? To plant false perspectives on purpose, it can be absolutely anything.

It's my fault for not putting the edit there sooner, but no, the film had people in clown masks after the incident because the news reported that the killer was dressed as a clown.
So you're wrong, retard.

In fact, here's the script: https://d2bu9v0mnky9ur.cloudfront.net/academy2019/screenplay/joker/joker_new_final.pdf
And here's the exact line of dialogue:
We hear Penny gasp, excited.
"GOOD MORNING" HOST (ON TV)
What about the eyewitness report of the suspect being a man in clown make-up or a clown mask?

A smile starts to creep across Arthur's face--
The camera zooms in closer to Thomas Wayne on the screen--

THOMAS WAYNE (ON TV)
It makes total sense to me. What kind of coward would do something that cold-blooded? Someone who hides behind a mask.
Someone who's envious of those more fortunate than themselves, yet too scared to show their own face.
(to camera)
And until those kind of people change for the better, those of us who've made a good life for ourselves will always look at those who haven't as nothing but clowns.

---
Another edit: Even if you wanted to say that scene was in his head too and every instance of clown masks being worn by the protestors, somehow, was "all in his head." How would he imagine Bruce Wayne's parents being shot down by a guy with a clown mask if he wasn't there to see it? How would he have imagined that?

 

[Doctor of Autism]

I hate to backseat moderate but there is a thread where you can talk about the Joker movie

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/joaquin-phoenix-as-the-joker.48575/

 

[biscuitscilia]

I hate to backseat moderate but there is a thread where you can talk about the Joker movie

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/joaquin-phoenix-as-the-joker.48575/

It's alright, mate. I didn't want to chat about the film just pointing out that I'm not in the wrong here.

 

[Korpon]

The girlfriend scene had a moment where the director showed she was never there instead of just having it be that one dialogue exchange. If he couldn't do that scene subtly then there's no way the rest of the film was in his head. That might have been the intention of the director to have it be ambiguous but I find it incredibly unlikely that he suddenly learned subtly and only expressed it in that subway scene.

I remember Mauler really defending this scene, saying that "if that scene wasn't there showing how she was never with Arthur, then the audience would be confused!". He really doesn't like subtly himself if he was fine with this, and I bet if it wasn't in the movie he'd probably bitch about being confused. Another good example of how Mauler can't understand subtlety in films and why it's a good thing, and how much of a normalfag cinema goer he really is, and not the great film expert and critic he thinks he is.

 

[Cemila Mandes]

Some dumbass fanboy tells Patrick Willems that the "Mauler army" will destroy him.

https://twitter.com/patrickhwillems/status/1251914741188120576

MauLer goes full damage control by denying his fans are like that while not speaking out against such behavior.

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1251946390189678594

MauLer continues to rile up his fans against his evil detractors and a new forced meme is born.

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1251946975165112323

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1251981862899253256

https://twitter.com/EvanMonroe12/status/1251985187094716417

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1252040974777409538

Jack Saint calls MauLer out and a slapfight ensues.

https://twitter.com/LackingSaint/status/1252050067999076353

https://twitter.com/LackingSaint/status/1252050311734276096

After MauLer resorts to a whataboutism and a forced meme, Jack has enough and blocks him, giving MauLer another opportunity to claim victory.

https://twitter.com/LackingSaint/status/1252054517895626752

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1252055802442952704

https://twitter.com/LackingSaint/status/1252057925583069185

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1252058579529580548

https://twitter.com/LackingSaint/status/1252059001585635333

MauLer retweets fanart that depicts him as being a lot thinner than he really is.

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1252061196930420736

As the final kicker, MauLer retweets an internet nobody accusing him of encouraging harassment to encourage harassment.

https://twitter.com/MauLer93/status/1252133433645707264

Meanwhile, it's still been over a year since MauLer continued his pledge of releasing his TFA critique and his fanbase remains none the wiser.

 

[HavaLottaTimetoSpare]

He's only made 6 videos in the last calendar year, two of which were April Fools Day gags, and 2 more were him bitching about Game of Thrones, which HE DIDN'T FINISH DOING. His patrons are being frikkin' robbed.

 

[Doctor of Autism]

He's only made 6 videos in the last calendar year, two of which were April Fools Day gags, and 2 more were him bitching about Game of Thrones, which HE DIDN'T FINISH DOING. His partons are being frikkin' robbed.

You see he has more important things to do like do 11 hour podcasts with a degenerate furry on why his opinions are always right and anyone who slightly likes TLJ are idiots

 

[biscuitscilia]

I remember Mauler really defending this scene, saying that "if that scene wasn't there showing how she was never with Arthur, then the audience would be confused!". He really doesn't like subtly himself if he was fine with this, and I bet if it wasn't in the movie he'd probably bitch about being confused. Another good example of how Mauler can't understand subtlety in films and why it's a good thing, and how much of a normalfag cinema goer he really is, and not the great film expert and critic he thinks he is.

The only way you could have been confused by that scene is if you were a child and weren't paying attention, which is a perfect summary of Mauler but I digress. Mauler's level of film expertise is unironically just as limited as the morons he attacks on EFAP.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Actually what happens in EFAP streams in the +4 hours mark?

 

[Korpon]

I figured I'd look for what he said in his Discord regarding the Twitter stuff that happened that happened on the 19th, and it's just him doing his usual memeing about it and moving along.

Lurking in his Discord gives me cancer I swear

 

[biscuitscilia]

I figured I'd look for what he said in his Discord regarding the Twitter stuff that happened that happened on the 19th, and it's just him doing his usual memeing about it and moving along.

View attachment 1248323
View attachment 1248324
View attachment 1248326
View attachment 1248328
View attachment 1248329
View attachment 1248331
View attachment 1248332
View attachment 1248333
Lurking in his Discord gives me cancer I swear

"Some people need bullying"
I thought the point was to prop up an intellectual space?

 

[Gar For Archer]

Honestly, my biggest bugbear with the film is that it can only exist in a bubble. Imagine this version of the Joker fighting Batman, or creating Harley Quinn. It's a fine film on it's own, and I don't demand all comic films be in franchises or in continuity with one another, but Joker's whole purpose is to fight Batman, and this one can't do that without being fundamentally re-written.

This movie makes it real easy to go for the “Joker is a persona adopted by multiple individuals” angle. Besides, with the age difference between him and Bruce makes direct confrontation pretty improbable - by the time Bruce becomes Batman, this Joker is gonna be old as fuck.

I honestly dunno where this particular character can go in the future. At the end of the day he’s still just a frail, mentally ill man who logically should be completely unable to outsmart or outfight even a normal physically fit person, much less a superhero like Batman.

As a random guess for the plot for the possibly-in-development sequel, I think it may revolve around him being on the run from the police while being sheltered by the Joker-gang that rescued him, with him dying near the end of the movie. However, someone else - radicalized by his agenda - will take up the moniker of the Joker.

 

[BR55]

"Some people need bullying"
I thought the point was to prop up an intellectual space?

You just don't understand, someone has an objectively wrong opinion about Star Wars and capeshit!
I often end up sympathizing with the people Mauler and his clique go after just on the basis of how insufferable they can be.
I swear Mauler clings to his "Objective criticism" crutch like a drowning man with a life preserver.

 

[biscuitscilia]

You don't understand someone has an objectively wrong opinion about Star Wars and capeshit!
I often end up sympathizing with the people Mauler and his clique go after just on the basis of how insufferable they can be.
I swear Mauler clings to his "Objective criticism" crutch like a drowning man with a life preserver.

Here's a fun fact: Linking to KiwiFarms on Mauler's discord is apparently a bannable offense.