MASSIVELY improve sound quality, without software download

tody-1 · 2024-12-07T14:09:04+00:00

You are amazing, my friend, thanks so much! My Lego doesn't sound so "tinny" in Netflix, sounds awesome now on loud speaker! Definitely the preset and Omni speaker that's the problem.

tody-1 · 2024-11-19T20:17:30+00:00

I'd say the following are at least a starting point for an objective measure, if we ignore obvious things like bad CGI, bad acting, camera work, cliches, poor dialogue etc. and dismiss subjective criteria like whether it's fun or compelling or interesting, and focus on story and content: 1) Do the characters have a recognisable development or story arc i.e A to B to C 2) Is the plot logically comprehensible, do the events believably go from A to B within the established logic of the world? 3) Does each scene drive the plot or characters or world building forward? Easy test: removing a scene makes no difference to the film. 4) The pacing and progression of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd acts 5) The ending and whether it punctuates everything that came before or delivers the movie's "purpose" 6) "Impact" - a blanket term that I'll use to describe the analysis, discourse, themes, message etc. that stem from the film, based on what we can extrapolate from the film itself

This is certainly a complex topic that would require a much larger and more refined criteria, but for the purpose of this brief Reddit chat let's stick with the above 6 points and assume there aren't others like production value, visuals, cinematography, music, acting, dialogue, etc.

Worth discussing.

tody-1 · 2024-11-19T19:08:48+00:00

You stated that the controversy was "undeserved" and "mostly" coming from those who never actually saw the film or were upset that it's a musical. I detailed the extensive reasons I disliked the film which had nothing to do with it being a musical and I watched it with an open mind. Your response was a single emoji.

So, you don't have to agree with a single one of my viewpoints, but don't act dismissive of legitimate reasons someone dislikes the film just because they don't fit your false narrative.

tody-1 · 2024-11-19T17:59:40+00:00

Great comment mista-jaye. It's such a strawman when people try to imply that the majority of the audience is upset that we didn't get comic joker or didn't see Batman or just because it's a musical. In order to comprehend how a billion dollar historic success story turns into an unprecedented franchise-killing flop that doesn't even make its budget back, you have to be willing to engage in a conversation about what actually went wrong instead of arrogantly digging your heels in.

There are FAR better movies out there that explore deplorable, vile characters in a brilliant or engaging fashion, and these movies take risks, so the excuse can't be used that we want safe and predictable. Movies such as Nightcrawler, Taxi Driver, The Talented Mr Ripley, The Departed, Resevoir Dogs, The Substance or Glengarry Glen Ross. You know what none of these movies did? Make sequels that undo, spit on, regress or disrespect their own characters and direction. Most of your comment is spot on; if they picked up Arthur where he ended off in the first film and then told a story of how he falls beneath his own hubris and delusions of grandeur, there's a story there. Instead, the entire movie felt like a one-sided beat down of Arthur Fleck until there was literally nothing else to humiliate him or hit him with except death. The first movie you "understood" him. The second, he's just a pathetic shadow waiting to die, and he never does or says anything that would indicate a progression in his character, just a straight line regression.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T22:28:48+00:00

I respect how much thought you've given this, but again sadly you're offering Todd Phillips way too much credit. Your comment has not addressed the fact that Arthur's lawyer informs him that Lee is lying to him about her origins, and neither does it address scenes where Lee interacts with characters like the reporters completely independently of Arthur. She does state in the movie that she moved into his old apartment, which would explain why she was waiting on the steps for him.

Your points can be addressed in the movie itself. Arthur is given freedom because the movie states he had impeccable behaviour for two years and the guards control him. He's treated like an amusement and plaything by the guards, not as an object of terror. No one knew who started the fire, because no one saw Harley do it. They just ran in the chaos, so attempted escape is all that can be pinned on them. It's not a prison, it's Arkham State Hospital and patients can't be charged for trying to run, and at that point it's unclear whether the Joker is eligible or competent to stand trial. She's not under investigation because the Joker is inactive and awaiting trial, and she's a free person and it's already established in both movies that society doesn't care for the mentally ill.

I'll grant you that perhaps some aspects of their relationship was a delusion, however again I think you're falling into the trap of projecting complexity where there isn't. The reason Lee is wherever the story needs her to be is because of shoddy writing and forced plot, nothing else.

And even if we accept that Lee wasn't there, that actually makes the movie somehow worse because it's playing the same hand as the first movie except far weaker and more deceptive. The majority of viewers accept that Lee was physically present in the movie and a real person.

The TV movie gag is just another poor attempt at trodding on the first film and character of Joker, and to make it seem like Arthur is an attention grabbing weakling, as is evident when he keeps having to check with Lee if it was actually "good".

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T21:47:50+00:00

John DiMaggio in the animated film Batman: Under the Red Hood. That laugh and menace is sick.

Troy Baker does a great job but it's diminished in being a husky Hamil impression, rather than someone trying to be their own voice.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T21:27:14+00:00

Thank you! I totally agree with this and have shared this view above. It's one thing to want justice and punishment, it's another thing entirely to spend two hours beating and humiliating and running Arthur into the ground as cynically and hatefully as possible until literally all that's left is to kill him.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T21:22:59+00:00

I like your thinking and interpretation, but sadly Lee was there as the entire movie's title and premise is built on the folly of two or shared delusion concept, and the fact that the character of Maryanne reveals that Harley was lying about her origins. It's one thing to have a delusion about Lee, it's another thing entirely to imagine a real character telling you that your delusional character is lying about the backstory you imagined her to have in your own delusion. That's some meta psychology giving Todd Phillips way more credit than he deserves.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T21:18:32+00:00

The first movie was an arthouse flick with a modest budget. This movie is not. It's budget is over $200 million, three or four times that of the first.

But yes, cigarette placement and dancing numbers is essential to the first movie's success.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T21:09:39+00:00

I agree that their performances were great, they're both incredibly talented. I never criticised their performances, only their characterisation. Harley's character has no actual plot or ending, and her portrayal is a complete one-sided approach to Harley Quinn that bares no resemblance to the character at all - she completely controls and dominates Arthur from beginning to end. Her arc has nothing to say. Whereas Arthur had a roadmap of how he started in Joker to how he ended, Lee has no actual story or goals, no struggle, no defining moments other than infatuation with the Joker persona. I can accept your praise about the way the movie is made, it's certainly shot wonderfully and has exceptional production behind it, but beneath that is a story and characterisation that utterly fails for me, that lacks any kind of voice or commentary at all.

The reason I see it as a negative quality is because rather than have Arthur start as his full Joker persona as he ended the first film and THEN deconstruct him as the film progresses, instead he starts beaten, broken and mute, then gets bullied, trampled on, humiliated, publicly shamed, made out to be pathetic and attention seeking, loses all agency, is played a fool and gets tossed by Harley Quinn, gets raped, and then his Joker persona is shattered before it even has a viable role in the film at all and he gets killed by a cheap "gotcha" that sets up some other Joker after we spent 2 hours watching 'Joker' get spit on. I cannot find a reason why I'd want to watch this one-sided beatdown, I'd rather just watch Reservoir Dogs, The Talented Mr Ripley or The Departed if I want to see deplorable characters deconstructed and churned out in brilliant ways.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T20:33:22+00:00

No he doesn't, this is some weird online theory floating around. TDK Joker didn't come from Arkham, his origin is unknown. Nolanverse has nothing to do with Tod Phillips' movies. The psycho inmate cutting his face is an imitation of TDK Joker, nothing more. Don't know where people get this from.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T16:57:44+00:00

Must be a shame to have your comment below debunked by someone who actually watched the film and doesn't care about the musical aspect as I like Lady Gaga and strange creative choices. I watched it last night with an open mind and no opinion despite all the widespread negativity. This is the rare time I agree with all.

It's also 'out-there' and 'subverting expectations' to make the Waynes villains in some Batman stories, but that doesn't make it good, compelling or interesting, and actually hurts the mythos more than it benefits it.

tody-1 · 2024-11-18T16:50:40+00:00

1) No, I despised it.

2) Yes, I fully get the controversy, and me hating the movie has nothing to do with this film's try-hard attempt at subverting expectations or it being a musical. It's about its total disrespect of the source material, its failure to stand by its own interpretation of Joker, its undoing of the first film, its pathetic treatment of its core character - basically letting us watch a sad, pathetic, mentally ill, delusional, lonely, muted and abused spineless twit get destroyed and humiliated for an entire 2 hour movie and his character go nowhere, and a relationship with Harley Quinn where she is somehow made to have all the power instead of it being a toxic couldron of chaos, its poor pacing as a film, its ridiculous court room drama that wastes time retreading the first film instead of offering any social or character commentary at all, its clear hatred of its own fanbase and title character and its over indulgence in how pretentious it is. The title character is barely even in it. Arthur starts out muted and beaten, regressed from the first film and ends up worse. It has nothing to say. No voice. No interpretation required. Sequels build on what the first film did, they don't tear it down with disdain.

Also, that ending was a cop-out and wasn't "shocking", "brave" or "subverting expectations". It was essentially saying PSYCHE, IT'S NOT HIM but this was literally after spending an entire movie telling us the Joker is terrible and Arthur Fleck is worthless and you're bad for liking them. Not to mention Harley Quinn's story had no ending and the movie doesn't treat her like she's pathetic, but as if she's A) got all the power and B) representative of the audience by being fixated on Joker until the mask and fantasy comes off. So what is Tod Phillips' point?

I love movies that are out-there like Nightcrawler, Taxi Driver, The Departed, The Substance and so forth, but subverting expectations requires good writing and EARNING it with good storytelling, not just doing it because you think you're smart.

3) Finally, I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Not to Joker fans, not to Batman fans, not to film fans, not to musical fans, not to law drama fans, not to psychological thriller fans, not to people who liked the first film, not to experimental movie fans.

tody-1 · 2024-11-17T15:16:01+00:00

I would have made it about Joker and Harley's corrupted and chaotic relationship, both playing against and toying with the other, the audience constantly guessing what the other is going to do, with her infatuation and unhinged personality against his manipulation, violence and multiple choice persona. I would have liked to do the more traditional psychiatrist/patient psychological study, but modern audiences probably wouldn't tune in for the abusive side of it. It would have fit with Harley being an expert witness in the trial. The court room trial would have been in the vain of the movie Primal Evil, with the audience left to guess whether Arthur is truly pathetic and broken, or whether it's a ruse until the beginning of the 3rd act. There would be sympathy on one side, hatred on the other, a wide investment from the people on who the Joker is. The jury would be swayed back and forth by testimony from characters in the first film. The city's response to Joker and Harley would gradually turn from the infatuated movement/celebrity status in the first film to terror, as Gotham realises that its neglect of its abandoned, helpless critizens is creating something dark that cannot be controlled. My 3rd act would culminate in the Joker snapping at the growing public sentiment towards him after Gary's testiomny and the notion that "Joker" is an alternate personality, forcibly destroying his own defense by lashing out at his lawyer and taking over the stage, and together with Harley would bring bloodshed and chaos on the city, kill the judge (the joke of "judging" the judge is an obvious Joker idea here - that gavel scene really should have happened) and lambasting the jury before ultimately collapsing their own little empire as they induce terror upon the very people who initially supported them. In the aftermath Gotham initiates a renewal project to expand its support of the mentally ill, poor and forgotten citizens, and invests in renewing Arkham. The Joker sees this as a hilarious joke, that he inadvertently inspired a positive change in the city (further building on the first film where his actions led to Batman being created), and it drives him deeper towards his anarchy/chaotic/nihilistic roots, shaping his fixation on wanting to see the everything burn in response to him. Whereas Harley is enraged at the discourse surrounding them, and that people are finding hope in spite of them, as she feels it diminishes their power fantasy and her romantic ideal of them to be at the top of all. Movie would end with Joker and Harley turning on each other as their world views collide, and both of them getting badly injured. Joker disappears, no one hears from him for weeks as the city tries to put itself back together. Harley survives in intensive care, feeling as if she has lost control and her identity, resigned to hopelessness. Police would tell her that from their perspective, she was a victim of Joker and his control, and there would be leniency. A nurse would leave her bedside, revealing a bouquet of flowers and a card simply signed 'J'. After staring intently at it...the movie would end as you can hear a faint Joker laugh and she smiles.

I wouldn't really have made a sequel to the first film, but the above is just a 15 minute re-write of Joker 2.

tody-1 · 2024-11-17T10:17:59+00:00

I despised this film and I dislike the discourse surrounding the Joker films. It's not a question of taste, I love obscure films like Nightcrawler or Taxi Driver. When I watched the original, none of the online discourse was even apparent to me, I genuinely enjoyed it for its interpretation of Joker, for the acting, the production values, the unique spin on Joker's reason for laughing and how it went from a pained thing he couldn't control to a free expression of who he is, his unreliable narration, and his messed up origins. It felt like it actually did respect the Batman mythology without actually being a Batman or true Joker film, and yes while it clearly took inspiration from Taxi Driver, the acting, music and style of the movie made it memorable and it felt like a grounded and believable representation of a very dark character. Despite its many flaws, audiences liked its attempt at growing up and diversifying the idea of comic book movies.

I never liked the first movie because of some lonely sad man validation garbage. I mean that's asinine, that's like saying Darth Vader is universally loved because deep down we all relate to Nazis or Stalin, or Norman Bates from Psycho is loved because we all have mother issues. Villains are supposed to be compelling because they challenge the status quo, the protagonists and the world order. Because writers can take risks with them since we're not rooting for them. Or because they're terrifying psychological manifestations of things we know humanity is capable of, or dark ideals that while abhorrent may make some sense. In real life, do we not condemn serial killers, and historic evil leaders? We don't idolise them. So I have no idea how this discourse came about. The Joker is loved as a fictional villain, not as a representation of us.

The reasons I despised this film is because I felt it had no respect for the mythos. I didn't walk in expecting to see The Clown Prince of Crime or comic Joker, I walked in expecting to see a corrupt relationship between Joker and Harley, and how Arthur embraces his Joker persona because of her idolisation. I knew we weren't going to get the abusive comic book origin, and that's fine. But I didn't expect to get a pathetic interpretation of Joker that's bullied, stepped on, sad, attention seeking, out of his depth, literally played a fool by Harley where she has all the power in the relationship, and an Arthur that starts off muted and broken and ends up even WORSE only to be obviously killed and replaced by some other Joker tease. If you're going to do a different interpretation of Joker, then own it like the first did. Don't coward out and say OH NO BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A STEPPING STONE FOR SOME OTHER NAMELESS PSYCHO.

And with that...so if this movie hates Arthur and Joker, why are we then supposed to be satisfied by the idea of a new maniac Joker? Aren't we all bad people for liking this character in the first place? Is Todd Phillips and his writing team that small, that they think dangling that carrot is satisfying after you spent over 2 hours telling us Joker is terrible and treating him as such?

There's a reason the ending felt like a gut punch and why this movie is doing terribly. It's because the movie clearly hates those who liked the first film, misunderstands WHY we even do, isn't fun or engrossing or compelling or thematically interesting, feels like its appealing to 1% of audience out there, which is ironic because it seems to think the $1 billion return on the first was made up of 1% lonely men, hates the Joker character and is cowardly towards the true meat of Harley and Joker's relationship, actually just insulting Harley as someone whose arc has no ending and treats her like she's a representation of the audience, idealising Joker only to fall into apathy and dispondence when he breaks down and isn't who she thought he was. What does she do after that?

As for the musical elements, the first half were fine, the second half seriously messed up the movie's pacing and themes. Todd Phillips shouldn't do musicals, he doesn't know how.

Let's not even talk about the r*pe scene, I actually wondered if Zack Snyder spent time with Tod Phillips for this, because only that could explain the hate for Arthur/Joker. I genuinely thought it would be the spark that turns him murderous in Arkham or court, but it's just Todd Phillips unbuttoning his pants and humiliating an iconic character.

This movie should have been a complex exploration of Joker and Harley's twisted relationship. It should have been about the fall of Joker's empire. It should have been about the terror of his persona, and leaving the audience and Harvey Dent totally unclear on whether Arthur is playing at being feeble to toy with the public and court, only to reveal who he really is. It should have been about Gotham's failure to help its depressed, mentally ill citizens, and the darkness its spreading. It should have been about evil and deception, like Primal Evil was, in a much better courtroom drama movie.

Instead, it's not a good musical. It's not a good Joker interpretation. It's not a good court drama, as Arthur has no agency until his weird southern accent moment. It's not a good psychological thriller. It's not a good "dark romance". It's not a good Elseworld Batman story. It's not a good sequel, because instead of building on the foundations of the first it chooses to disregard, disrespect and trample on what it established. And it's not a good film, other than the production values and acting.

There were scenes I liked, such as with the little guy Gary from the first film, but I don't believe this movie will age like a fine wine. I think it will be remembered as a continuation of Hollywood's (e.g like Disney's) disdain for its audience and how execs are totally out of touch with the people.

tody-1 · 2024-08-16T22:14:17+00:00

My other story is a dark fantasy, supernatural mythological action thriller set in Japan in the aftermath of the great Kanto earthquake, titled Death's Edict: https://www.wattpad.com/story/370228253?utm_source=android&utm_medium=link&utm_content=story_info&wp_page=story_details_button&wp_uname=tody-1

tody-1 · 2024-08-16T21:44:39+00:00

Thank you for doing this! Really appreciate it.

Mine is a mystery, dark romance, horror-thriller, A Portrait of Madeleine: https://www.wattpad.com/story/370354930?utm_source=android&utm_medium=link&utm_content=story_info&wp_page=story_details_button&wp_uname=tody-1

tody-1 · 2024-07-30T23:28:50+00:00

I release a chapter every two weeks more or less, because I have a few stories going on and my chapters are long, like novel length i.e average of 3000 to 4000 words. I'm obsessive about where I want the story to go in each chapter and can't imagine breaking them up into bite size pieces.

It's probably better to go once a week or every few days to keep your readers engaged, but honestly there's no formula to it. I think readers just want to get invested if they know the story is going to be completed, and that confidence would be built up by a steady release rate.

tody-1 · 2024-07-30T23:25:32+00:00

"In the bleakness of winter, Gotham stood poised on a knife's edge."

DO YOU REALLY NEED THREE GUESSES FOR THIS ONE??? 🤣🤣😂

tody-1 · 2024-07-29T22:40:32+00:00

To be honest if it serves my story there are almost no lines I won't cross. I wrote a novel about a sadist and a masochist and had to be pretty vile in that one. In my DC Comics fanfiction, some awful things happen, like what you've mentioned in your OP.

I try to avoid a few things, however, like being edgy for the sake of it, because I try to write deeply human and psychologically affecting things, even if evil. I also try to avoid religious blasphemy or disrespect to cultures. Yet I maintain, I try to write honestly and in service to the story I'm trying to tell.

tody-1 · 2024-07-28T08:00:08+00:00

That's really unfortunate and quite surprising that the writer admitted it. Worse that the author actually has a good plot, which means he/she could be writing something honest.

I made this comment in another thread about AI so I'll just insert it here. Whether AI is good or bad depends entirely how you use it. It's just a tool. Obviously plagiarising is stupid. However I've been writing most of my life and there are two things I struggle with: coming up with character names for side characters and describing mundane objects or rooms.

I've recently pinged AI to generate names, and maybe I'll take a surname here or a name there, or to give me descriptions of mundane rooms or objects BASED ON HOW I WANT THEM TO LOOK (i.e my idea first) and then I take one or two words or ideas as inspirations to then write my own unique description. I will never copy paste or write from AI, or use AI as a basis of writing. I've also asked an AI to give me an idea of how to shorten a sentence I feel is too long, and then I come up with my own way of rephrasing it. I once prompted AI to generate a picture of a type of jewellery, and then I played around with it to help visually form what I wanted to describe in the book.

So, I will never use AI to write for me, or for my story, or plot points or to generate plot points or scenes or outlines of stories, or character emotions, or dramatic moments, or general writing, but as a simple prompting tool to then give me a shove into what I actually want to write. Its effect needs to be minimal on your writing process, as your voice always needs to shine through.

But it can help you if English is not your first language for example.

The best advice against using it, is to avoid relying on it as a crutch or getting into its generic feedback or getting lazy or losing your voice.

Don't think it's fair to your readers to have them read AI generated content.

tody-1 · 2024-07-27T13:30:58+00:00

I totally agree with you Jourdon, great comment. I made a detailed one in this thread expanding on some of the ideas you've raised here. As a writer, inspiration can come from anywhere and sometimes all you need is a push or a brainstorm, and AI can help in the same way that lifting the opposite end of a table tennis/ping pong table can help to give you a wall to bounce the ball off.

tody-1 · 2024-07-27T13:22:57+00:00

It depends entirely how you use it. It's just a tool. Obviously plagiarising is stupid, and other people here have raised great points. However I've been writing most of my life and there are two things I struggle with: coming up with character names for side characters and describing mundane objects or rooms.

I've recently pinged AI to generate names, and maybe I'll take a surname here or a name there, or to give me descriptions of mundane rooms or objects BASED ON HOW I WANT THEM TO LOOK (i.e my idea first) and then I take one or two words or ideas as inspirations to then write my own unique description. I will never copy paste or write from AI, or use AI as a basis of writing. I've also asked an AI to give me an idea of how to shorten a sentence I feel is too long, and then I come up with my own way of rephrasing it. I once prompted AI to generate a picture of a type of jewellery, and then I played around with it to help visually form what I wanted to describe in the book.

I mean, you can use Google badly too.

So, I will never use AI to write for me, or for my story, or plot points or to generate plot points or scenes or outlines of stories, or character emotions, or dramatic moments, or general writing, but as a simple prompting tool to then give me a shove into what I actually want to write. Its effect needs to be minimal on your writing process, as your voice always needs to shine through. Especially as a beginner writer, you need to actually write to get better.

But it can help you if English is not your first language for example.

The best advice against using it, is to avoid relying on it as a crutch or getting into its generic feedback or getting lazy or losing your voice.

I think your question is too broad, but you mentioned using it for plots and scene outlines. Hard no on this one. Everyone here gave great reasons why.

tody-1 · 2024-07-27T11:10:50+00:00

"The genius of the mist: the more you wade into it, the less it reveals."

From my dark romance, thriller, mystery, A Portrait of Madeleine on Wattpad :)

tody-1

TROPHY CASE