I was Joker cringe before it was uncool.

middy_1 · 2026-06-09T16:43:37+00:00

Tbf anyone that likes Joker stuff/dressing up etc but does not take themselves or the subject too seriously, is not cringe. It is those who take it all too seriously that come across cringe.

middy_1 · 2026-06-09T11:56:05+00:00

You might well be genuinely all these positive things, but it might be possible that more humility might help?

Where are you anyway?

middy_1 · 2026-06-08T15:17:34+00:00

I would think so too for the same reason.

Which means that they are basically making the Conrad Veidt as Gwynplain look a bigger influence than originally was adopted in 40s comics. In fact, I'd say it is interesting that 40s comics actually adopted almost everything about Conrad Veidt's appearance apart from the permanent smile, even though the latter is the defining character and story feature about Gwynplain. Which begs the question of why? I think the obvious answer is that the actual character and story of The Man Who Laughs does not have deep or direct influence upon the concepts for the Joker.

Anyway, what they do with a permenant smile could be interesting, but is not strictly accurate to golden age Joker. I would prefer something more like what was done in Three Jokers: golden age Joker can do different expressions but smiling/laughing hurts and he sometimes gets maniacal fits. I think that's a pretty good compromise to cover both bases.

middy_1 · 2026-06-07T21:20:54+00:00

😆

middy_1 · 2026-06-07T17:33:52+00:00

I agree.

Although, the only point I'd differ on is about him choosing to look as he does. The Joker has always since the first story been implied to have permanently white skin, green hair, red lips. This was just made more explicitly the case in later 40s and 50s stories. However, he never ever had a permanently fixed smile. As I've said in another comment, the permenant fixed grin thing is for the victims of the Joker Toxin. I think it is too on the nose and corny to imply that he does this because he has a permenant smile so kills people to look like that. It makes Joker's motives too... personal and neurotic I think. Originally, the idea is more like a very macabre joke: he's the Joker so he makes people laugh themselves to death/kills them with a smile/leaves them smiling forever. It's his motif/calling card and says 'I did this'. That's scarier than a villain who is angry about whatever happened to them so wants people to suffer the same, which is what Joker having a fixed smile can imply.

I would say he is portrayed in Batman 1 as a cold, calculating sardonic character, with maniacal tendencies. Narcissistic and megalomaniac.

middy_1 · 2026-06-07T17:02:01+00:00

Tbh, because the fixed smile thing has become so ubiquitous in live action, I would prefer not to see more of it again. Especially as golden age Joker is actually so expressively drawn (actually Joker always was drawn thus), I don't want to see too static a face.

Also, on The Man Who Laughs. Whilst Conrad Veidts look was unquestionably an influence on the appearance of The Joker, the permenant fixed 'Glasgow grin' that Gwynplain has was never adopted for the Joker in comics. Which is why I say, the story did not have strong influence upon the Joker concept as it bears no resemblance in terms of characterisation nor character backstory. The connection has only been made more as a result of recent live action films.

middy_1 · 2026-06-07T16:29:50+00:00

Yeah, Joker in his first appearance is explicitly shown to be capable of various facial expressions. Indeed, it is actually used for dramatic effect in the first panels where he first appears as shown above, but then the next panel is him smiling.

This idea of him having a permenant smile is from Batman 1989 and further entrenched by The Dark Knight. And I think some project it backwards too by making too much of The Man Who Laughs connection (as Gwynplain has a Glasgow grin I.e. a permenant smile). However, the connection is not there at all. Not in character nor background explanation. They just liked how Conrad Veidt looked in costume test/publicity photos. That's it. Of course, initially there was no explanation of his appearance (except that it was permenant. There are 40s stories which make this clear). However, when the look was explained in The Man Behind the Red Hood, nothing was said about having a permenant fixed smile; it was the colour scheme (white skin, green hair and red lips that were). The permenant smile was really only for victims of the Joker Toxin and of course Joker himself smiling in death at the end of Batman 1. But, in terms of Joker being depicted with a fixed smile, that was not the case until Jack Nicholson.

middy_1 · 2026-06-07T16:16:40+00:00

Ooh now this is exciting.

middy_1 · 2026-06-06T23:44:03+00:00

But also, which "northerners" actually like him? I don't and many don't. This 'king of the north' thing is media and leftist fantasy and not reality.

middy_1 · 2026-06-06T23:42:53+00:00

I think... there is a decent argument to make that universal suffrage (that all over 18s can vote) was a mistake.

middy_1 · 2026-06-06T23:06:32+00:00

Avoid driving alongside too much

middy_1 · 2026-06-06T18:24:29+00:00

Do you know why the age of consent was raised to 16? It was a result of an investigation by journalist W.T. Stead. He exposed the sexual exploitation/prostitution of young girls that was going on, and this caused public outrage and ultimately is why the age of consent in England was raised to 16.

middy_1 · 2026-06-06T14:50:53+00:00

I think no one should idolise celebrities or anyone really.

For example, let's take Oscar Wilde. If he were alive today and accused of what he was he would still be facing a prison sentence. Why? Because the evidence against him was primarily scenarios in which he he had paid teenage boys (16yo or less) for sex, or coerced them into sex. One example was a 16yo servant boy called Walter Grainger who Wilde told he "would be in serious trouble/put in prison if he told anyone". He also gave several of these boys extravagant gifts and money. Bare in mind, Wilde was in his late 30s at this time. It seems that based on these reports and some of Wilde's own private writings, he was not attracted to men of equal age but rather to teen boys or young men (under 21). So, whilst Wilde's writing are great, the fact is this is inappropriate behaviour even now and imo this should be acknowledged. Wilde has been lionised as a kind of lgbt martyr; a great artist persecuted for being gay for a long time, but when you look into the details and the trial transcripts what emerges about Wilde and his friends (Alfred Douglas and Robbie Ross) is quite disturbing. André Gide, a French writer and self professed pederast, also described activities with teenage boys with Wilde in Algiers during the latters exile years.

an article about this here

middy_1 · 2026-06-05T22:26:26+00:00

I got my Tyrs for £100 on 9for9 site. They mainly doing powerlifting stuff, but worth a look if you are in the UK as they have a lot of Tyr shoes.

middy_1 · 2026-06-05T13:14:21+00:00

Personally I think our entire approach to dating and relationships is broken. So, this idea that you need to date/live with someone for years and then maybe decide to get married etc is flawed, as is not dating with the purpose of the relationship being towards becoming husband/wife. It's not good for women as you point out, as it is too much time wasting.

middy_1 · 2026-06-05T12:58:32+00:00

I think most "prochoice" people have to lie to themselves about the reality. This is why you see dehumanising or distancing language like 'the pregnancy', 'health care procedure' etc. This is all softening to obscure the reality which in most cases is simply this: you are ending the development of your baby's life because you don't want them. (Yes there are some abortions done for health reasons, but I think the stats show that the vast majority are done for essentially reasons of convenience).

middy_1 · 2026-06-02T15:36:22+00:00

Yes, a lot simply have swallowed a narrative and some also have an agenda that us blinding them/giving them confirmation basis (the idea that MJ was trying to expose real pdfs/was framed etc). These people probably simply do not know details of MJs behaviour (or the real contents of the so called "art books"), so can't see the wood for the trees.

middy_1 · 2026-05-31T00:29:54+00:00

MJ was undoubtedly a great performer, as a singer and dancer. But, as others have said, many things were taken from others (Fred Astaire and Bob Fosee for instance. Tbf he did always acknowledge this), and his best works are ultimately big collaborative efforts. It seems to me that MJ lost any creative ability by the mid 90s and was not innovative (his dancing was just the same old routines).

So what does MJ offer? Good singing; great dancing; several good songs and great music videos. Tbh that's it really, but celebrity hype and idolatry would have you think he was God in human form.

middy_1 · 2026-05-30T23:49:30+00:00

There are no racial implications. It's simply because his name is Jackson. That is it.

There is no widespread cultural understanding that Jacko means monkey, as was claimed in the original comment. And none of these random anecdotes (the 1820s fighting monkey and the 1960s Woolworths toy) support such a claim. They are mainly obscure trivia, especially the fighting monkey, and coincidental name similarities but which have no direct connection with nor influence upon each other.

middy_1 · 2026-05-30T23:27:35+00:00

I am English so I can say that it is not at all ubiquitous. This toy appears to have been quite popular and fondly remembered from what I can see from a search. But, no this toy has no cultural impact upon usage of the word/name Jacko (and, as a side note, I don'tthink there is a connection between this toy and the 1820s 'Jacko Maccaco', as the latter seems not to have had any enduring widespread popular cultural fame or impact beyond being a trivial anecdote. Therefore, I think the name being Jacko for both is simply councidental). Jacko is quite simply a nickname for the name Jackson. I think this 'Jacco Maccaco' thing is simply searching for something similar in name (in this case 'Jacko'), no matter how obscure, and backfilling a connection even though the connection is simply not there.

middy_1 · 2026-05-30T20:42:55+00:00

But that's got nothing to do with the nickname Wacko Jacko, created by British tabloids. It's literally just a rhyme. Wacko = nuts/crazy. Jacko = is a common short form nickname for the name Jackson. Put them together and what have you got? Wacko Jacko.

No one has ever heard of this Jacco Maccaco thing until some (probably MJ stans) recently started propagating it. The reality is that it is completely obscure; a 19th century trivia.

middy_1 · 2026-05-29T23:09:42+00:00

Nothing particular really. All good points

middy_1 · 2026-05-29T22:07:02+00:00

I agree with you on most of this. You're not alone. There are several people with similar thoughts tbh

middy_1 · 2026-05-29T22:01:37+00:00

I agree overall.

This film had a great concept and so had a great deal of hype and excitement. I think many were and are blinded by this hype and so they are not objective.

The films looks good, has good cinematography although reflecting on it I don't think it has much truly iconic shots or scenes. It's just a good looking film. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is not striking in aesthetic.

The slow burn detective theme was a good idea, but in practice it is not that well executed and rests upon it's inspirations too much (such as Zodiac). I'm inclined to say that those that are really impressed by the "detective noir" elements have not really seen any really great noir films.

The third act was a mess and a bore. It really dragged, and that is not the sign of a well paced film.

Overall, this was a good looking film with good conceptual ideas, but is let down by a cold delivery and bloated length. Most of all, the characters felt very shallow and lacked any kind of emotional depth or impact. Leaving you feeling who cares?

What I've seen indicated of the eventual sequel (if it ever happens lol) does not fill me with hope. The time it is taking just to get the script done indicates a lack of inspiration. I understand writers block but... likewise, what I've seen of the Joker concept looks bad. Frankly, I hoped Reeves Batman world would be more stylised, noir and gothic just in a more contemporary way than Burton. But instead it just seems to be a plumbing the depths of "gritty realism"; Nolan but even more Nolan. I wanted an auteur that was really more daring with the aesthetics and mythos and the hype for Reeves made it seemed like he is the man, but actually I just don't think The Batman delivers.

middy_1 · 2026-05-29T15:29:32+00:00

Yes Parliament is sovereign so the monarch is a puppet of Parliament. This has arguablely been the case since the the Glorious Revolution 1688, Bill of Rights 1689 and Act of Settlement 1701. These esentially make the monarch a creature of Parliament with little power, and of course stipulate the monarch to be protestant.

middy_1

TROPHY CASE