RonS2112

Member
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RonS2112

  • Boards Title
    Collector

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The timeframe given here may be about right.....at least according to the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/deterioratebrochure.html The best they're willing to bet on is "several centuries" before the paper deteriorates, which is why they're in the process of digitizing everything they have.
  2. I suggest you not read any of the interviews he's currently taking on the movie's end, then.........
  3. Ha! As I was leaving the theater, there was one guy -- obviously a Batman fan -- railing loudly that he thought the movie sucked because it was too artsy with no Batman. Not sure how he could have seen the same trailer I did and conclude that this movie was going to be anything other than a character study. Put a humorous ending on an otherwise great movie though.
  4. That's one interpretation, I suppose. But given how well-crafted the rest of the story is, I kinda think pointing out that they were Wayne Enterprise employees was more deliberate than that.
  5. Right....it's deliberately ambiguous. Arthur seems to think that all he needs is a chance and he can be successful. Parts of the film support that, but then the reality slowly dawns that perhaps he's too far gone, and maybe always was. Anyway, between here and the folks I saw the film with, it's sparked quite a bit of relevant discussion, which I think is the hallmark of a good movie, no?
  6. Maybe, but then the whole beat-down by Wayne Enterprise employees seems to lack purpose.
  7. My interpretation was that at the end of the movie, Arthur is finally taking steps to make his fantasy -- twisted as it is -- into reality.
  8. Ahhh, but then there's the picture in the file of his mother as a young woman with the note from Arthur Wayne written on the back. So was she delusional or wasn't she?
  9. Disagree....at the very least, "any schmo" has to be rich. It reinforces the fact that Arthur was THAT CLOSE to living a life of privilege, but misses out simply because he's not accepted by that father. You can't tell that story if Arthur's father is just another bum.
  10. Short answer, yes. Longer answer provide here by CinemaBlend in a better way than I could write it up: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2481483/joker-ending-explained-what-really-happened Note the link to a Joaquin Phoenix interview where he basically hints at the same thing. He said he deliberately did not answer the question as to what's real and what isn't.
  11. I think there's more to it than that. The whole subtext of the film is that Arthur (and by extension, his mother) has fallen through the cracks of society. The notion of Thomas Wayne deliberately scheming to keep Arthur's mother from letting the world know that she has borne Thomas Wayne's son reinforces the denial of Arthur being "let in" to a normal life. This is reinforced by the employees of Wayne Enterprises literally kicking the out of him at the mere sight of him. Take away Thomas Wayne and that entire subtext is lost.
  12. My take was that EVERYTHING ELSE was a fantasy and that the final scene was him finally taking steps to realize that fantasy. But the folks I saw the film with didn't all agree with me....
  13. Both are fantastic titles. Slott's Fantastic Four and Amazing Spider-Man are also really good reads these days. Lots of good stuff to like in new titles these days; I hate seeing that people are dropping them.
  14. I really like getting comics in these, and they're really easy to deal with on the shipping end as well: http://www.geminicomicsupply.com/product/comic-flash-mailers/ Less than $1.00 each, and nearly impossible for the mailman to fold in half.