Holy sh*t...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/u-s-military-issues-warning-to-troops-about-incel-viol-1838412331

is there a specific link between incels and the joker ?

Quote:

---

I've seen it written that the movie is "a portrait of the supervillain as the original incel." Is Joker an incel?

To fully dive into the question of whether Joker is sexually active would require spoiling more of the movie than I'm comfortable with. I'll just say that, while this Joker could be taken as an avatar for the incel movement, the film does do away with one particular misogynist trope that popped up in the script. There is still a lot of masculine rage in Joker, but it's directed more at society as a whole than at women in particular. Also, for what it's worth, the majority of Joker's victims are men. (Usually men who are a lot more obviously loathsome than Joker, but that's a whole nother line of criticism.)

---

https://www.vulture.com/2019/09/is-joker-an-incel-movie-everything-to-know-about-joker.html

Quote:

---

Let's get this out of the way: In my opinion, Joker is not incel bait, nor do I think it is encouraging anyone to commit and celebrate violent deeds. I didn't hate the movie. Actually, I think it's kind of great in many ways, but the things it does badly are tough to ignore. The entire thing deserves deeper consideration than to be shoved into the corner of unblemished masterpiece or dangerous screed, as is so often the case with movies steeped in exhausting hype.

---

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/joker-isnt-incel-bait-but-theres-still-a-lot-we-need-to-talk-about

TCTTS said:

---

I'm NOT AT ALL endorsing any of this hysteria, but I think the difference is that all of those movies didn't come out in an era when mass shootings were so prevalent, and when so many of the shooters themselves all seem to fit a certain profile. Again, I think this is all ridiculous, but I at least understand the context.

---

yep

we live in crazy times.

Don't blow it off. Also don't overreact. Is what it is.

I'm not into comic book movies at all (although I did like the Nicholson Batman back in the 80's) but after all this controversy and the one trailer I've seen I can't wait to see this.

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

Edit: good point by The Lost that the joker didn't inspire the aurora shooter. The NY police chief told that to the media after the attack and it was widely reported, but he'd apparently made that up and the Denver Post had an article about that a few years later: https://www.denverpost.com/2015/09/18/meyer-the-james-holmes-joker-rumor/amp/

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

---

So what exactly should be done? (Genuinely curious) Are studios supposed to censor themselves for fear of how a handful of mentally troubled individuals (terrorists even) might react?

I didn't have an angle on this film until yesterday when a buddy brought it up. I 100% took the movie at face value and thought it had potential to be really good (still could be!). But the social context of the film wasn't even a slight consideration to me. Like, it's somewhat baffling that because a guy picked joker, out of an infinite pool of villains, to dress up as the day he mentally broke down 10 years ago, is a reason to "protest" or "be upset" about this movie today.

What's confusing is that the connection between The Joker and the Aurora theater shooting is tenuous at best. The movie that the gunman chose was "The Dark Knight Rises." Sure, it's a Batman movie...but it was chosen because it was the most anticipated movie in a long time and the theaters were packed. It was chosen because of the density of the crowd, not the movie itself (which no one had see yet as it was opening weekend). For the DoD to specifically mention the Aurora shootings as a concern for this movie is disingenuous when they have nothing in common other than they're DC movies.

What I don't get is that there is a much more realistic target that got ignored: "Rambo: Last Blood." C'mon, I've even seen SJW reviews for this film that basically labeled it "Angry white male massacres Mexicans." Now, that is a movie that could be seen by the media as a movie that glorifies the killing of certain groups. I don't agree with that in the slightest, but it makes more sense that a movie like that could incite another El Paso lunatic to target Hispanics. Considering that Rambo is a Reagan-era American hero, I'm surprised there wasn't an outpouring of hatred. The movie basically flew under the radar of scrutiny that the Joker movie is embroiled in.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm just confused at all of this.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

---

So what exactly should be done? (Genuinely curious) Are studios supposed to censor themselves for fear of how a handful of mentally troubled individuals (terrorists even) might react?

---

Of course the answer is, all movies must be approved by the State first before release. Will someone please think of the children!!!

M.C. Swag said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

---

So what exactly should be done? (Genuinely curious) Are studios supposed to censor themselves for fear of how a handful of mentally troubled individuals (terrorists even) might react?

---

A couple of y'all are reading what you want to read here in assuming I'm endorsing censorship. I'm not saying that at all. Studios, artists, and directors absolutely have the right to make whatever they want to make, zero censorship. Movie houses and audiences have the right to not show / watch what's being produced if they choose not to, and because of the concerns outlined above, some may choose not to show or watch this movie.

And to be clear, I said the previews and trailers are indicating it's a sympathetic Joker, which is why people are concerned right now, but I haven't seen it and don't know if the Joker actually comes off that way. I'm purely explaining why some audiences are concerned about this movie ahead of its release when they didn't show such a level of concern about Hannibal, Jigsaw, Freddy Krueger, or previous versions of the Joker.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

---

So what exactly should be done? (Genuinely curious) Are studios supposed to censor themselves for fear of how a handful of mentally troubled individuals (terrorists even) might react?

---

A couple of y'all are reading what you want to read here in assuming I'm endorsing censorship.

---

I simply asked a open ended question. I wasn't trying to project.

With the added context and conversation being had, what exactly would you expect to come of it? Again, a genuine question.

Young, loser, incel, males can not "connect" to John Rambo. Context. He's an old school badass and the epitome of everything they are not, could never be, etc.

The concern is that this same crowd could in fact connect with an anti hero that is a loser, shunned, and unwanted.

How concerning this should be? I don't know. It's almost as if, to me, just sounding the alarm probably does more harm than good.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Yeah, a clear difference between this joker and Hannibal, Freddy Krueger, Jigsaw, and even prior jokers is that this one, from previews anyway, appears to be a very sad, ordinary, struggling man who nobody notices and who has no meaning until he snaps and starts killing people. We don't have movies all about those other popular villains being sad, struggling, ordinary men until they snap and find meaning in mass murder. They aren't portrayed as relatable characters the way this joker appears to be.

Given all the shootings occurring in real life right now, a movie that makes that kind of protagonist at all sympathetic is concerning to some people - especially since we've already had one mass shooting by someone who said they were inspired by the joker (if I remember right.)

Nobody had these concerns about the DC joker, for example. It's very much a reaction to the way they're portraying, and potentially glorifying, the joker's origins as something relatable and accessible.

---

So what exactly should be done? (Genuinely curious) Are studios supposed to censor themselves for fear of how a handful of mentally troubled individuals (terrorists even) might react?

---

A couple of y'all are reading what you want to read here in assuming I'm endorsing censorship.

---

I simply asked a open ended question. I wasn't trying to project.

With the added context and conversation being had, what exactly would you expect to come of it? Again, a genuine question.

---

Nothing has to be done. Studios should keep making what they want to make and people should keep seeing what they want to see, and not seeing what they don't want to see. This is just an example of some parts of the market responding negatively to a product because they have concerns about it. It's capitalism.

Film Theory posted this on 9/8. Technically zero spoilers as all of the video is based on things we've already seen....BUT....draws some amazing comparisons to give an idea on what's actually going to be underlying idea of The Joker

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The bottom line is that the media sort of picks and chooses which movies to scrutinize and put under the microscope.

All of the supposed hysteria surrounding this movie (about possible shootings, incels, etc) feels completely manufactured, to me.

Sort of like the whole Heath Ledger thing back when TDK came out. His death had little to nothing to do with his Joker role, but the media made it seem that the role itself is what killed him.

It's just hot gas, It's nothing.

---

Unless the heat gets turned up to the point where movies like this don't get released anymore. This is the equivalent of book burning.

alot of anarchists and internet trolls love the guy ****es mask.

his name is robert paulson