Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,677
- 212,894
Grease is pretty sweet, so is Wizard of Oz. Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny also kicks ass. i liked the Johnny Cash movie too. Musicals can be good. it just depends on the music selection. you pick shitty songs, you get a shitty movie.
- 1
Burns
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 6,090
- 12,272
I wouldn't consider Walk the Line or The Doors to be musicals, they are movies about music. As in, people don't just burst out in song mid plotline, singing their "dialog" instead of saying it.
- 4
Chris
Potato del Grande
- 18,202
- -341
I can hear the fragile masculinity cracking.
- 1
Rajaah
Honorable Member
- 11,235
- 14,915
Musicals can be good. The question is if this movie will capture the zeitgeist like the first one did, or if it'll just be a vehicle to replace dumb Joker with super-better-in-every-way Harley, plus a side-serving of The Message. Or it could be somewhere in-between and just a decent character movie.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,677
- 212,894
so, is The Blues Brothers a musical or not? one scene they go into a diner and Aretha Franklin all of a sudden starts singing.
i think the movies about music counts as a musical. you're literally sitting through songs sung by characters in the movie.
also check out The Wall and Tommy. those movies are weird as fuck.
TBT-TheBigToe
Gemcutter
- 9,672
- 27,673
Burns
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 6,090
- 12,272
For the most part "musical" movies are also on stage/Broadway productions, so that's an easy place to start, but that's not exactly it and there is more too it. Wikipeadia has Tommy, The Wall, and The Blues Brothers as musicals, whereas Walk The Line and The Doors are both biographical films.
This is the definition from Wiki, which seems to fit well, as far as definitions go:
The Doors and Walk The Line both have music as background and as demonstrations of real life events, they don't tell the story of Cash's life, nor the members of the Doors, in a musical format. As in, them singing on stage isn't advancing the plot; you could cut them right after walking on stage, and then pick it back up right after they were done singing, and you would not lose the plot. Of course that would make the movie worse, but it's not the same as if you cut Aretha Franklin's song out of The Blues Brothers, where it would just leave you wondering WTF is going on.
As an aside, I like The Wall album (and have listened to it 100+ times) and I used to like the Tommy album (more than I do now), but they were both albums first, then they made a film around them; which is probably what makes them so weird. They are never going to spring to my mind when talking about musicals, because I associate them as albums. The Blues Brothers, on the other hand, is certainly a musical, and I would watch it when it came on TV, but I would never go search it out to watch, or listen to the soundtrack.
- 1
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,677
- 212,894
i dont agree with that at all. Walk The Line's music is very much pivotal to Cash's relationship and it advances the plot of his character. music like any genre of the arts deals with feelings and emotions. the development of music in a biographical movie. since the music is through out the film, then its part of the story which in my opinion makes it a musical.
if it were like one song then ok, but there are several songs in Walk The Line. BTW i hated the Doors film. i only watched it once during the 90s and i didnt enjoy it.
Burns
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 6,090
- 12,272
To put it another way, the songs in Walk the Line were made far before the movie and they are not singing the events of his life nor the events of the movie. Yes, the interactions they set up for the movie, during the songs between Cash and Carter add depth, but you would not need to rewrite the movie, to tell a cohesive story if you took out all the music (it would just be a shitty movie).
The same could not be said of any musical I can think think of. If you cut the music out of Grease or Paint Your Wagon, it would be nonsensical.
- 1
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 15,849
- 7,848
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,677
- 212,894
it doesnt matter if one is about somebody's life, its about the music, if you have performances by the film's characters through the movie, then its a musical in my opinion. music is music. look at it this way. say a musical has 20 minutes of singing in it. and a "biopic" has 25 minutes of singing in it. the "biopic" somehow isnt a musical?
if you cut the music out of Walk The Line, it wouldnt make much sense either. let's meet in the middle and call films like Ray or The Doors or Selena or Walk the line, "musical biopics"? it can be both.
- 1
- 3,106
- 2,712
lets meet in the middle and just say you are fucking retarded. They are biopics of Musicians, that doesn't make them musicals.
What did you expect from the (multiple) Steve Jobs biopics? Holy shit they talk about his time with fucking apple? how dare a biography about a person involve their fucking life's work?
Would you watch a "Biopic" on Elon Musk if it was nothing but 2 hours of his love for bird watching? literally just his journals on the different species he's catalogued in his life so far?
Here i'll actually work with you. The film Yesterday....would you consider it a biopic or a musical?
What it truly is speaks to the heart of all these biopics, lazy, derivative fucking cash grabs. Yesterday and "walk hard the dewey cox story" (a parody of these musician biopics) are basically identical in this regard. They both draw attention to this genre of film for how absolute shit it is.
While some of these biopics are autobiographic (released by has been's who need money for child support or simply looking to extend their fame), the vast majority of these films are released immediately following the musician's death, like the moment the cash cow dies and the royalty checks stop coming, approved by their ungrateful children to keep milking their legacies.
These films are mostly fabricated non-sense that sugarcoat or outright falsify entire histories just so they can string together a bunch of made up, unrelated scenes in between a highlight reel of greatest hits from the musician/band.
Why? because nostalgia for music is an easy way to shortcut emotional connection with their fans without having to bother to actually write a cohesive, intelligent narrative of that person's life and struggles. why bother hiring a writer or director who can tell a compelling story when you can just jump from billboard hit to billboard hit and let the viewer input their own emotional connection/memories to that song and transpose that feeling over to the film they are watching? In that very narrow regard, I can see how a simpleton would confuse these biopics with musicals, but you are wrong. They are not musicals, they are just lazy films.
What did you expect from the (multiple) Steve Jobs biopics? Holy shit they talk about his time with fucking apple? how dare a biography about a person involve their fucking life's work?
Would you watch a "Biopic" on Elon Musk if it was nothing but 2 hours of his love for bird watching? literally just his journals on the different species he's catalogued in his life so far?
Here i'll actually work with you. The film Yesterday....would you consider it a biopic or a musical?
it's actually neither.
What it truly is speaks to the heart of all these biopics, lazy, derivative fucking cash grabs. Yesterday and "walk hard the dewey cox story" (a parody of these musician biopics) are basically identical in this regard. They both draw attention to this genre of film for how absolute shit it is.
While some of these biopics are autobiographic (released by has been's who need money for child support or simply looking to extend their fame), the vast majority of these films are released immediately following the musician's death, like the moment the cash cow dies and the royalty checks stop coming, approved by their ungrateful children to keep milking their legacies.
These films are mostly fabricated non-sense that sugarcoat or outright falsify entire histories just so they can string together a bunch of made up, unrelated scenes in between a highlight reel of greatest hits from the musician/band.
Why? because nostalgia for music is an easy way to shortcut emotional connection with their fans without having to bother to actually write a cohesive, intelligent narrative of that person's life and struggles. why bother hiring a writer or director who can tell a compelling story when you can just jump from billboard hit to billboard hit and let the viewer input their own emotional connection/memories to that song and transpose that feeling over to the film they are watching? In that very narrow regard, I can see how a simpleton would confuse these biopics with musicals, but you are wrong. They are not musicals, they are just lazy films.
Last edited:
- 3
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 21,418
- 38,908
I don't even want to know why the submarine was yellow. In this timeline it might have been a mustard hole.
- 1
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,677
- 212,894
it really isnt that complex. it doesnt matter why they made these films. what matters is the films have x amount of music in a "biopic", equal or exceeding the amount found in a clearly defined musical. so i'm sitting through a ton of songs for both biopics and musicals, but its somehow different because one movie is about somebody real while the other is just random songs? like i said, music is music. call it what you want, but if you hate musicals but love biopics about musicians that have lots of songs performed by the characters in the films. there is no difference.
- 1
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 21,418
- 38,908
You are wrong on this one. A musical uses songs as part of the exposition and dialogue. Johnny Cash singing Johnny Cash songs does not make that movie a musical.
- 7