• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the new Joker movie dangerous?

Is the new Joker movie dangerous

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 15.4%
  • No

    Votes: 33 84.6%

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Yes, an influence, maybe like 0.00001% of an influence.

Should we ban everything that might be an influence? I mean, serial killers existed in the past, before mass media and the like too. What should they have banned?

We don't need to ban anything. Just tone down the violence. And yes, serial killers existed in the past, and in that time there were influences on them, too.
 
We don't need to ban anything. Just tone down the violence. And yes, serial killers existed in the past, and in that time there were influences on them, too.

Is toning down the violence not banning it?

You're allowed any gun you like, as long as it's a kids' toy gun...... it's clearly not a ban.

Yes, so many influences, you can't hope to stop it.

The US has a govt that is inherently violent. Kids who are under the age of 18 have literally grown up under perpetual war. They send people to other countries to get post traumatic stress disorder.
 
I tend to think there's no such thing as a dangerous movie, show, or other entertainment.

But that is too absolute.
It really depends on the movie and the person(s) watching it.

More the people than the movie, IMO.

You have to be able to separate entertainment from reality.

Reality is that boys are often inherently violent.
 
Madness, as you know, is like gravity, all it takes is a little push.
 
If the intent and message of the movie is to CAUSE violence and harm by intentionally inspiring white men to violence...then yes. But as this is not the intent, but rather a movie about a comic book villain of one of the most popular comic book heroes, then no.

It's kind of like when the right likes to go after video games or porn as a scapegoat for violence. The individual who engages in these crimes already have something wrong with them. ANd as they go through life unchecked, or lack the proper care, they will lash out anyway for any reason.

Video games and media don't create crime; the criminal has too many other factors already existing to make him or her do what they do.
 
Is toning down the violence not banning it?

You're allowed any gun you like, as long as it's a kids' toy gun...... it's clearly not a ban.

Yes, so many influences, you can't hope to stop it.

The US has a govt that is inherently violent. Kids who are under the age of 18 have literally grown up under perpetual war. They send people to other countries to get post traumatic stress disorder.

Voluntarily toning down the violence is not a ban. But perpetual war might just be a contributing factor. Especially for the people on the receiving end. Trump hasn't started any wars yet; let's hope he keeps it that way.
 
If the intent and message of the movie is to CAUSE violence and harm by intentionally inspiring white men to violence...then yes. But as this is not the intent, but rather a movie about a comic book villain of one of the most popular comic book heroes, then no.

It's kind of like when the right likes to go after video games or porn as a scapegoat for violence. The individual who engages in these crimes already have something wrong with them. ANd as they go through life unchecked, or lack the proper care, they will lash out anyway for any reason.

Video games and media don't create crime; the criminal has too many other factors already existing to make him or her do what they do.

The $205 billion dollar advertising industry says you're wrong. So does election campaign spending. People are malleable; some very malleable; some just need an inspiration to push them over the edge. a few don't need anything.
 
Is toning down the violence not banning it?

Turning the notch down a few points on the "Violence" dial is not an outright ban. It's "less blowing **** up/less massacres/less mutilations/ less etc"
 
Turning the notch down a few points on the "Violence" dial is not an outright ban. It's "less blowing **** up/less massacres/less mutilations/ less etc"

Well, if people have the choice, and they're allowed to do something, then they can do as they choose.

If they're forced to turn down the notch, then it's a ban.
 
Just saw the movie tonight. I wish I hadn't.

I voted yes. While the acting is ok - though the main character overplayed his role - this is an extremely dark, depressing movie that tries to portray the "Joker" as both sympathetic and cool - as he became a mentally ill, psychotic murderer. You won't leave this movie feeling good.

I voted it is dangerous for a specific reason. Subliminal suggestions are extremely powerful on people - with this understood in the movie industry. DOZENS of times in the background they had signs and newspaper headlines declaring "KILL THE RICH"! (rich people), portraying wealthy people as arrogant, cruel and aloft, while everyone else was desperately poor, barely surviving, because of the rich people. All wealthy characters of any significance in the movie were evil, viciously violent people. It also blames him becoming the Joker for lack of social services money - also the fault of rich people.

Basically, the underlying theme of the movie is that evil greedy and violent rich people created the Joker - as they destroy society - and lead to everyone who isn't rich being a desperate victim. In the end there are poor-people riots murdering police and wealthy people in a semi-heroic sense - while flashing "Kill the Rich" over and over and over as background subliminal suggestions. Bruce Wayne (the future Batman) is a child - and his father is portrayed as a violently evil man, with him and the mother murdered by someone motivated by Joker's righteous murders of 3 rich guys who were beating him up just because they were rich and therefore evil.

Joker is portrayed as a hero to the poor people because he is murdering rich people. Basically, that is the entire subliminal suggestions and theme of the movie: All rich people - meaning everyone who isn't very poor - are the cause of all problems and therefore they all should be murdered. Joker, despite all his efforts to devoting his life to making people laugh and be happy, is forced systematically by evil rich people to justifiably become an insane psychotic mass murderer.

I voted yes, though it has nothing to do with portraying violence itself.
 
Last edited:
Given what movie theaters charge for admission and snacks, I would say that any movie in theaters is dangerous to my wallet.
 
It's sounds like the next logic step from Grapes of Wrath and It's a Wonderful Life. Socialist movie themes seem to have had the sugar coating rinsed away.

Just saw the movie tonight. I wish I hadn't.

I voted yes. While the acting is ok - though the main character overplayed his role - this is an extremely dark, depressing movie that tries to portray the "Joker" as both sympathetic and cool - as he became a mentally ill, psychotic murdered. You won't leave this movie feeling good.

I voted it is dangerous for a specific reason. Subliminal suggestions are extremely powerful on people - with this understood in the movie industry. DOZENS of times in the background they had signed and newspaper headlines declaring "KILL THE RICH"! (rich people), portraying wealthy people as arrogant, cruel and aloft, while everyone else was desperately poor, barely surviving, because of the rich people. All wealthy characters of any significance in the movie were evil, viciously violent people. It also blames him becoming the Joker for lack of social services money - also the fault of rich people.

Basically, the underlying theme of the movie is that evil greedy and violent rich people created the Joker - as they destroy society - and lead to everyone who isn't rich being a desperate victim. In the end there are poor-people riots murdering police and wealthy people in a semi-heroic sense - while flashing "Kill the Rich" over and over and over. Joker is portrayed as a hero to the poor people because he is murdering rich people. Basically, that is the entire subliminal suggestions and theme of the movie.

I voted yes, though it has nothing to do with portraying violence itself.
 
DOZENS of times in the background they had signed and newspaper headlines declaring "KILL THE RICH"! (rich people), portraying wealthy people as arrogant, cruel and aloft, while everyone else was desperately poor, barely surviving, because of the rich people.
Have you ever been to Gotham?
It's almost all they have there.
You are only one of three things, fabulously wealthy, poorer than dirt, or from out of town.
You can only be an innocent, a hero, or a villain.

There're hardly any "regular" people in the whole place.
 
Interesting how attitudes in the movie industry have changed. In most (not all) old movies rich people were really good people. While certainly there were exceptions, whether Western shows like Bonanza and Big Valley to most movies, the financially wealthy were good, moral people.

That was changed. For example in the Law and Order series, the guilty one was always the rich one, always the professional, always the white person if suspects of different races, always the conservative, and certainly always the minister or priest.
 
Taking any political or social issues out of my review, this is a very slow moving and depressing movie with a fully predictable plot line. However, it is not a scary movie in the sense sudden surprise moments or gory graphic violence.

It is almost like a solo performance by the main actor excessively playing off that actor going fully anorexic prior to filling the role - and then spending a great deal of time showing of his anorexic body over and over and over. I didn't care for that, nor the premise in general that actors need be anorexic to get a role.
 
Movies are not dangerous. People who can be manipulated by movies or influenced by them are if they act out. Movies are not reality. There is no Batman and no Joker, no Robin, no Catwoman, no Riddler, no Penguin, etc.

I think like just about every Batman movie ever made, I will skip it until it's free to watch.

Cheers.
Evilroddy
 
(I don't know if the poll is up or not, and I apologize if it isn't, but just respond yes or no if it didn't come up)

There's been a lot of controversy lately regarding the new Joker movie coming out. Before I get the 'yes or no' answers, let me run down the background of this movie:

-This is an origin movie of Batman's top villain, the Joker, and how it shows the man's descent into madness

-2 trailers are up to watch, along with some TV spots, receiving overwhelming positive responses from people who have watched the trailers

-The movie won the Venice Film Festival's top award (it had an 8 min standing ovation after it's showing) and rumors have been swirling that it's Oscar worthy (both the movie and Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker)

-It's expected to have a $90 million opening weekend (October 4th)

-It has received mostly positive reviews by critics, but the ones that have reviewed it negatively are saying the movie could inspire single white males to cause great acts of violence

-Joaquin Phoenix walked out during an interview after being asked if the movie inspires violence (but he did go back)

-Aurora victims (supposedly it's them, we don't know) wrote a complaint to Warner Bros. about the movie being dangerous

I encourage anyone to read up on this movie. If you ask me what I think of this movie, my answer is this will possibly the best movie this year and, no, it isn't dangerous. But either way, what do you think?

its a movie . . of course not. PEOPLE are dangerous. Blaming movies or books or music is just as retarded as blaming a short skirt for rape.
Can any of those things inspire a person to do something bad or evil? of course but that person was already broken.
 
Honestly this whole Joker "controversy" reminds me of the whole <"ViDyAgAmEsCaUzMaSsShOoTiNgS"> insanity.
 
We don't need to ban anything. Just tone down the violence. And yes, serial killers existed in the past, and in that time there were influences on them, too.

Movies of 2019 have nothing on the ultraviolence of the 80's and 90's.
 
Movies of 2019 have nothing on the ultraviolence of the 80's and 90's.

You're correct; ALL of them are now very graphically violent. Ever since Sam Peckinpah.
 
(I don't know if the poll is up or not, and I apologize if it isn't, but just respond yes or no if it didn't come up)

There's been a lot of controversy lately regarding the new Joker movie coming out. Before I get the 'yes or no' answers, let me run down the background of this movie:

-This is an origin movie of Batman's top villain, the Joker, and how it shows the man's descent into madness

-2 trailers are up to watch, along with some TV spots, receiving overwhelming positive responses from people who have watched the trailers

-The movie won the Venice Film Festival's top award (it had an 8 min standing ovation after it's showing) and rumors have been swirling that it's Oscar worthy (both the movie and Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker)

-It's expected to have a $90 million opening weekend (October 4th)

-It has received mostly positive reviews by critics, but the ones that have reviewed it negatively are saying the movie could inspire single white males to cause great acts of violence

-Joaquin Phoenix walked out during an interview after being asked if the movie inspires violence (but he did go back)

-Aurora victims (supposedly it's them, we don't know) wrote a complaint to Warner Bros. about the movie being dangerous

I encourage anyone to read up on this movie. If you ask me what I think of this movie, my answer is this will possibly the best movie this year and, no, it isn't dangerous. But either way, what do you think?
Movies, as music,video games, and so forth, is only as dangerous as the people watching/listening/playing it let it be.
 
Just saw the movie tonight. I wish I hadn't.

I voted yes. While the acting is ok - though the main character overplayed his role - this is an extremely dark, depressing movie that tries to portray the "Joker" as both sympathetic and cool - as he became a mentally ill, psychotic murderer. You won't leave this movie feeling good.

I voted it is dangerous for a specific reason. Subliminal suggestions are extremely powerful on people - with this understood in the movie industry. DOZENS of times in the background they had signs and newspaper headlines declaring "KILL THE RICH"! (rich people), portraying wealthy people as arrogant, cruel and aloft, while everyone else was desperately poor, barely surviving, because of the rich people. All wealthy characters of any significance in the movie were evil, viciously violent people. It also blames him becoming the Joker for lack of social services money - also the fault of rich people.

Basically, the underlying theme of the movie is that evil greedy and violent rich people created the Joker - as they destroy society - and lead to everyone who isn't rich being a desperate victim. In the end there are poor-people riots murdering police and wealthy people in a semi-heroic sense - while flashing "Kill the Rich" over and over and over as background subliminal suggestions. Bruce Wayne (the future Batman) is a child - and his father is portrayed as a violently evil man, with him and the mother murdered by someone motivated by Joker's righteous murders of 3 rich guys who were beating him up just because they were rich and therefore evil.

Joker is portrayed as a hero to the poor people because he is murdering rich people. Basically, that is the entire subliminal suggestions and theme of the movie: All rich people - meaning everyone who isn't very poor - are the cause of all problems and therefore they all should be murdered. Joker, despite all his efforts to devoting his life to making people laugh and be happy, is forced systematically by evil rich people to justifiably become an insane psychotic mass murderer.

I voted yes, though it has nothing to do with portraying violence itself.

I haven't seen the film, but fwiw, one Youtube reviewer, The Critical Drinker, asserted that the goofballs who follow the Joker aren't portrayed as being any nobler than the rich people.
 
There's no such thing as a dangerous movie.

Holocaust "masterpiece" causes uproar at Venice film festival | The Times of Israel

its staggering central performance from nine-year-old Czech Roma boy Petr Kotlar — who witnesses a panoply of depravity from incest, bestiality and rape to mutilation and murder — has had co-stars Harvey Keitel and Stellan Skarsgard as well as the critics in raptures.

The Guardian’s Xan Brooks also heaped praise on Czech director Vaclav Marhoul for “never putting a foot wrong,” adding: “One day they’ll make a film about the first public screening” at Venice.

“It will feature the man who fell full-length on the steps in his effort to escape and the well-dressed woman who became so frantic to get out that she hit the stranger in the next seat,” he wrote.

“The centerpiece will be the moment 12 viewers broke for the doors only to discover that the exit had been locked,” he added.

This "wonderful" piece of "art" is so disgusting, that is causes the people that watch it to become violent while attempting to flee from the theatre.
 
There's no such thing as a dangerous movie.

So you claim there was nothing wrong with Nazi movie propaganda, nothing dangerous by it at all.
 
Movies, as music,video games, and so forth, is only as dangerous as the people watching/listening/playing it let it be.

And that is the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom