Honestly, responding to criticism that this movie humanizes a violent, disaffected, white incel reminiscent of a string of right-wing terrorism by playing into a broader right-wing narrative of...
Honestly, responding to criticism that this movie humanizes a violent, disaffected, white incel reminiscent of a string of right-wing terrorism by playing into a broader right-wing narrative of the left is either the most ironic thing ever, or some brilliant Andy Kaufman-esque meta-comedy.
Yes, let's blame a movie with a fictional character based on prior art that's been around for decades on the impact it could have, maybe, on vulnerable groups and let's consider every possible way...
Yes, let's blame a movie with a fictional character based on prior art that's been around for decades on the impact it could have, maybe, on vulnerable groups and let's consider every possible way it could offend or upset anyone within the last decade.
All sorts of terrible things happen all the time. Murder, rape, kidnapping, burglary, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't make movies about these things because folks who may have experienced them might be upset?
What if you lost a family member to a giant talking robot? Do you get to ask that the Transformers franchise donate to a charity on your behalf? Do you get outraged that Starscream may have been presented in a sympathetic way?
I understand how these sorts of things may personally impact certain individuals but it is absolutely absurd to demand charity donations and to even consider cancellation because of an event that occurred 7 years ago (Aurora).
The problem isn't the art; the problem is reality. The problem is that these shootings aren't only occurring in fictional works. The problem is that a group of involuntary celibates might get radicalized by a movie.
I really want to see this movie. At the same time I feel sad that the director does not seem aware that his portrayal of the Joker might be problematic in this era of incels* and gun violence. To...
I really want to see this movie. At the same time I feel sad that the director does not seem aware that his portrayal of the Joker might be problematic in this era of incels* and gun violence. To see him essentially tell us about "both sides" is also really disappointing to me.
No, as someone who literally just voted about as left as it gets in my country because I agree with the actual policies in 99% of cases, I gotta say this shit has to stop. Like, the left is making...
No, as someone who literally just voted about as left as it gets in my country because I agree with the actual policies in 99% of cases, I gotta say this shit has to stop. Like, the left is making a joke out of itself and the right – successfully – is using that to recruit young people on the claim that the left has "lost it". They used to be the ones who push for freedom of the arts and now we're trying to make people feel bad for making/watching a movies with an evil main character?
The worst part is: I agree with the below poster that we might be creating self-fulfilling prophecies, here.
There's a difference between 'freedom of the arts' and 'freedom of the arts to never get criticised'. The big tantrum that gets thrown every time certain people are faced with the smallest amount...
There's a difference between 'freedom of the arts' and 'freedom of the arts to never get criticised'.
The big tantrum that gets thrown every time certain people are faced with the smallest amount of criticism is the real threat to free speech. No one is trying to make anyone 'feel bad'. The general stance of most people on the 'left' is that everyone enjoys problematic media is sometimes, but that doesn't change that it's problematic. Hell, Roxane Gay wrote a very successful book about it.
It is important to have a discussion about the tropes in films and how they relate to real life ideologies. It is a completely innocuous thing that has always been done. We should be critical of the messages movies are selling people (whether deliberate or not). Having honest discussions about these things is how we progress as a society, and how art improves over time.
I definitely agree and maybe they got me, maybe the asshole branch of the internet successfully fooled me into thinking this was an "attack" when it's merely a discussion. I'll admit that. What it...
I definitely agree and maybe they got me, maybe the asshole branch of the internet successfully fooled me into thinking this was an "attack" when it's merely a discussion. I'll admit that.
What it feels like to me, currently, is that there is a subtle, blurry line. The conversation is shifting from "this worries me" to "why aren't you firing the people that made this thing that worries me?". Like, there should be more of a discussion about whether the complaints are even valid yet it seems that people are now demanding actions first and the accused responding with any kind of defense is seen as an admission of guilt.
One example of this getting out of hand was when they fired James Gunn for some distasteful jokes he tweeted years ago. The attack on him was orchestrated by some right-wing activist and it succeeded (at least for a while). Similar with Kevin Hart being fired as an Oscar host for homophobic tweets he made in 2011. It's basically what I'm talking about: It's getting hard to distinguish actual concerns over "offensive" material from orchestrated ones from right-wing activists to make them look foolish. And I find that concerning.
One more thing: I understand the families of the victims of the shooting having this opinion and writing letters. I'm mostly talking about media coverage and the political angle that gets pushed into things like this so quickly, nowadays.
Who are these lefty people complaining? Besides the family addressing the studio in the article who are they? They're rarely mentioned but sometimes the media refers to some fucking tweets...
I gotta say this shit has to stop. Like, the left is making a joke out of itself and the right – successfully – is using that to recruit young people on the claim that the left has "lost it"
Who are these lefty people complaining? Besides the family addressing the studio in the article who are they? They're rarely mentioned but sometimes the media refers to some fucking tweets circulation. Do not take the bait.
Plus, I really feel like the criticisms of the left are being amplified if not outright invented by the right. I've seen practically no major left-wing criticism of the film besides a little...
Plus, I really feel like the criticisms of the left are being amplified if not outright invented by the right. I've seen practically no major left-wing criticism of the film besides a little grumbling at most.
This isn't a right vs. left issue. It's right vs. right-wing-portrayal-of-the-left. Like when they say the left calls EVERYONE a Nazi. It's a vague, broad, and ultimately unfalsifiable claim.
I wouldn't go as far as to say invented by the right. There is a culture of intolerance on the internet (i.e. reddit, twitter) to call anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative a...
I wouldn't go as far as to say invented by the right. There is a culture of intolerance on the internet (i.e. reddit, twitter) to call anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative a nazi/pedo/bigot/racist/alt-right/trump supporter/etc. It's absolutely disingenuous to claim that this is most of the left or that the left is somehow a cohesive and organized group, but there definitely is some basis for criticism.
On a side note, it is interesting to see media outlets on both the left and right claim that there is "outrage" about this film in light of very little actual outrage other than some dude on indiewire having reservations about the film
Again: that's unfalsifiable. How do you even respond to that? What's the basis of your claim, and what would it take for you to consider it disproved? Whether or not it is, what evidence would it...
Again: that's unfalsifiable. How do you even respond to that? What's the basis of your claim, and what would it take for you to consider it disproved? Whether or not it is, what evidence would it take, hypothetically, for you to reject that claim? Clearly it's not the fact that, as you point out in the second paragraph, there's "very little actual outrage."
So which is it? Is this or is this not a manufactured controversy?
A lot of the news seems to be from the director using the phrase "far-left outrage" more than any real outrage or reaction to the outrage. I've seen about as much right wing overreactions to the...
A lot of the news seems to be from the director using the phrase "far-left outrage" more than any real outrage or reaction to the outrage. I've seen about as much right wing overreactions to the left on this film as I have left wing criticisms of the film, which is to say, fairly little. I do think it is manufactured controversy, but not a particularly political one, just media publications trying to generate traffic Hollywood tabloid style.
With that said, I haven't delved real deep into this one this is just my opinion based off what I've seen
Isn't your claims that the right are the ones inventing this outrage equally unfalsifiable though? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard at play here in your portrayal of the...
Isn't your claims that the right are the ones inventing this outrage equally unfalsifiable though? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard at play here in your portrayal of the situation and criticism of Odysseus' own theory regarding it.
I would say it is falsifiable. My criticism is that it's a statement made with no evidence. I would settle for that evidence, i.e. examples of left-wing outrage on a fairly significant scale. Show...
I would say it is falsifiable. My criticism is that it's a statement made with no evidence. I would settle for that evidence, i.e. examples of left-wing outrage on a fairly significant scale. Show me efforts to get the movie banned and the companies boycotted that got some traction. Show me where I can find a large community of people talking about how evil the movie is. Show me some high profile film critics or academics really railing against the movie on ideological grounds. If you want to put a number on it, do a survey of how left-leaning moviegoers feel about the movie, and how strongly.
Just look at the article. Here's the "outrage":
A letter from five people saying the movie "gave [them] pause." I'd say that's a mild reaction, since the letter came from family members of people who died in the Aurora shooting during a showing of The Dark Knight.
An army base warning that threats were made against theaters showing the film. It's implied that it would come from right-wing incels, not the left, and a later statement said that they did not have "any information indicating a specific, credible threat to a particular location or venue."
A review calling the subject matter problematic. THE. HORROR.
It's nothing. I'm not saying no one opposes this movie, I'm saying that to call it wide-spread left-wing OUTRAGE is a manufactured controversy. It's not happening.
It concerns me that the simple act of telling an empathetic story for a certain type of character evokes "both sides" criticism. This seems like the opposite and equally-fallacious end of the...
It concerns me that the simple act of telling an empathetic story for a certain type of character evokes "both sides" criticism. This seems like the opposite and equally-fallacious end of the "video games cause violence" argument.
I just posted a related topic within seconds of your post: https://tildes.net/~news/hvt/army_warns_soldiers_about_incel_threat_at_joker_movie_report_its_based_on_a_tip_from_the_fbi
There's a take out there that yet another movie about a cis het white guy misunderstood by society self-actualizing with violence isn't a fantastic idea, but that's more of a defeated sigh than an...
There's a take out there that yet another movie about a cis het white guy misunderstood by society self-actualizing with violence isn't a fantastic idea, but that's more of a defeated sigh than an outrage. Maybe it's just the circles I hang out in?
Yeah. The left can't so much as sigh or roll their eyes without the right saying it's hysterical screeching. The overwhelming "left" response to this movie is just indifference.
Yeah. The left can't so much as sigh or roll their eyes without the right saying it's hysterical screeching. The overwhelming "left" response to this movie is just indifference.
It’s meant to be sympathetic because the film, similar to The Killing Joke, paints Arthur to be a genuinely nice man who society beats down until he eventually snaps. He wasn’t inherently evil....
He’s a loser that takes to widespread violence and criminality in an effort to make something of himself. How is that sympathetic?
It’s meant to be sympathetic because the film, similar to The Killing Joke, paints Arthur to be a genuinely nice man who society beats down until he eventually snaps. He wasn’t inherently evil. The Joker may have never existed had Arthur not been failed by the healthcare system, had people not been so cruel to him, had he been treated with a modicum of kindness.
Does that excuse what he becomes? No. Is the Joker a sympathetic villain? Absolutely not. But sympathy is meant to be directed at Arthur Fleck, not the Joker.
I think the moral of the film is supposed to be “How many Jokers has society created because we don’t care enough? How many bombers and mass shooters might have gone down a different path had society not kicked them to the curb every chance it got?”
It’s not exactly ground breaking material and has been before plenty of times. This movie is simply using one of the most infamous characters of all time to do it.
I think there is a value to works that serve to humanize horrible characters. In doing so, they remind us that evil and horrible deeds are human deeds, done by humans who usually view their...
I think there is a value to works that serve to humanize horrible characters. In doing so, they remind us that evil and horrible deeds are human deeds, done by humans who usually view their actions as justified, and often view themselves as being good people. They are not deeds done only be inhuman monsters, who are not like us, who are easily recognizable by their monstrosity, and thus can't be anyone we know. They are not usually deeds done by people because they were born innately horrible people, and they are not usually deeds done by people who do them for the sake of doing horrible things.
We can see this with Lolita, for example: throughout the work, there is the theme of how someone doing horrible things tries to make himself seem sympathetic, with the frequent reminder to the reader that this person trying to make himself sympathetic, trying to justify himself and paint himself as a good person, is horrible.
We can similarly see it with Der Untergang. People in it who are horrible, and have done horrible things, are still humans, with human emotions and even episodes of kindness to others, even when that kindness is, for example, in the context of brainwashing children and encouraging them to go to their deaths for an insane cause. Thus the existence of these human traits, and even human kindnesses—that Hitler and those around him were not, as the producer of the film noted, 'monster[s] from Mars'—does not mean that they were not horrible people. In looking for hideousness, we cannot just try to divide everyone into normal people and cartoon villains.
However, it's a bit unclear to me how one would go about this type of narrative with a literal cartoon villain.
Joker already had something like this in form of the Killing Joke, which argues that a horrible villain character and a good hero character are just separated by a single bad day.
Joker already had something like this in form of the Killing Joke, which argues that a horrible villain character and a good hero character are just separated by a single bad day.
I just deleted most of the comment that I had written, because I honestly don't think it would serve much use here, or be read in good faith. I also do not think I could write it clearly enough to...
I just deleted most of the comment that I had written, because I honestly don't think it would serve much use here, or be read in good faith. I also do not think I could write it clearly enough to be understood.
I just. This entire comment section is utterly depressing with how many people had the point of the (manufactured) criticism streak right over their heads.
1.) Joker isn't doing anything new. It's the Hollywood machine using a creative director to make a buck off of its love affair with the dollars brought in by violence, even if it's sadistic...
1.) Joker isn't doing anything new. It's the Hollywood machine using a creative director to make a buck off of its love affair with the dollars brought in by violence, even if it's sadistic violence. That the director has fallen for a chance to "sneak a real movie in the studio system under the guise of a comic book film" is sad.
2.) Yes, everyone has a right to free speech. That also presumes some sort of responsibility on the part of the speaker. Anyone who would think about it for a minute wouldn't dump more violence into the American culture at this point, unless they had an economic or other self-serving motive.
That wasn't my point. Those words were the director's. My point was that the studios were making money off of his desire to create what he saw as a real movie, with a big budget, while satisfying...
That wasn't my point. Those words were the director's. My point was that the studios were making money off of his desire to create what he saw as a real movie, with a big budget, while satisfying their itch to make another hopefully very profitable movie about the Joker.
You said the director fell for that, and that it's sad. But I don't see how, it seems like a win-win. Studios get a safe, good investment, and people get to make a movie they actually find...
You said the director fell for that, and that it's sad. But I don't see how, it seems like a win-win. Studios get a safe, good investment, and people get to make a movie they actually find interesting. Audiences get a new experience and a new perspective on a known entity.
tl;dr: Director of a new film tries his hand at viral marketing by greatly exaggerating outrage.
Yeah it's insane that people still fall for this kind of stuff.
Honestly, responding to criticism that this movie humanizes a violent, disaffected, white incel reminiscent of a string of right-wing terrorism by playing into a broader right-wing narrative of the left is either the most ironic thing ever, or some brilliant Andy Kaufman-esque meta-comedy.
Yes, let's blame a movie with a fictional character based on prior art that's been around for decades on the impact it could have, maybe, on vulnerable groups and let's consider every possible way it could offend or upset anyone within the last decade.
All sorts of terrible things happen all the time. Murder, rape, kidnapping, burglary, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't make movies about these things because folks who may have experienced them might be upset?
What if you lost a family member to a giant talking robot? Do you get to ask that the Transformers franchise donate to a charity on your behalf? Do you get outraged that Starscream may have been presented in a sympathetic way?
I understand how these sorts of things may personally impact certain individuals but it is absolutely absurd to demand charity donations and to even consider cancellation because of an event that occurred 7 years ago (Aurora).
The problem isn't the art; the problem is reality. The problem is that these shootings aren't only occurring in fictional works. The problem is that a group of involuntary celibates might get radicalized by a movie.
If only there was some basis for this. Like I don't know, a tip from the military or FBI
The criticism started happening long before that tip existed.
I really want to see this movie. At the same time I feel sad that the director does not seem aware that his portrayal of the Joker might be problematic in this era of incels* and gun violence. To see him essentially tell us about "both sides" is also really disappointing to me.
No, as someone who literally just voted about as left as it gets in my country because I agree with the actual policies in 99% of cases, I gotta say this shit has to stop. Like, the left is making a joke out of itself and the right – successfully – is using that to recruit young people on the claim that the left has "lost it". They used to be the ones who push for freedom of the arts and now we're trying to make people feel bad for making/watching a movies with an evil main character?
The worst part is: I agree with the below poster that we might be creating self-fulfilling prophecies, here.
There's a difference between 'freedom of the arts' and 'freedom of the arts to never get criticised'.
The big tantrum that gets thrown every time certain people are faced with the smallest amount of criticism is the real threat to free speech. No one is trying to make anyone 'feel bad'. The general stance of most people on the 'left' is that everyone enjoys problematic media is sometimes, but that doesn't change that it's problematic. Hell, Roxane Gay wrote a very successful book about it.
It is important to have a discussion about the tropes in films and how they relate to real life ideologies. It is a completely innocuous thing that has always been done. We should be critical of the messages movies are selling people (whether deliberate or not). Having honest discussions about these things is how we progress as a society, and how art improves over time.
I definitely agree and maybe they got me, maybe the asshole branch of the internet successfully fooled me into thinking this was an "attack" when it's merely a discussion. I'll admit that.
What it feels like to me, currently, is that there is a subtle, blurry line. The conversation is shifting from "this worries me" to "why aren't you firing the people that made this thing that worries me?". Like, there should be more of a discussion about whether the complaints are even valid yet it seems that people are now demanding actions first and the accused responding with any kind of defense is seen as an admission of guilt.
One example of this getting out of hand was when they fired James Gunn for some distasteful jokes he tweeted years ago. The attack on him was orchestrated by some right-wing activist and it succeeded (at least for a while). Similar with Kevin Hart being fired as an Oscar host for homophobic tweets he made in 2011. It's basically what I'm talking about: It's getting hard to distinguish actual concerns over "offensive" material from orchestrated ones from right-wing activists to make them look foolish. And I find that concerning.
One more thing: I understand the families of the victims of the shooting having this opinion and writing letters. I'm mostly talking about media coverage and the political angle that gets pushed into things like this so quickly, nowadays.
Who are these lefty people complaining? Besides the family addressing the studio in the article who are they? They're rarely mentioned but sometimes the media refers to some fucking tweets circulation. Do not take the bait.
Plus, I really feel like the criticisms of the left are being amplified if not outright invented by the right. I've seen practically no major left-wing criticism of the film besides a little grumbling at most.
This isn't a right vs. left issue. It's right vs. right-wing-portrayal-of-the-left. Like when they say the left calls EVERYONE a Nazi. It's a vague, broad, and ultimately unfalsifiable claim.
I wouldn't go as far as to say invented by the right. There is a culture of intolerance on the internet (i.e. reddit, twitter) to call anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative a nazi/pedo/bigot/racist/alt-right/trump supporter/etc. It's absolutely disingenuous to claim that this is most of the left or that the left is somehow a cohesive and organized group, but there definitely is some basis for criticism.
On a side note, it is interesting to see media outlets on both the left and right claim that there is "outrage" about this film in light of very little actual outrage other than some dude on indiewire having reservations about the film
Again: that's unfalsifiable. How do you even respond to that? What's the basis of your claim, and what would it take for you to consider it disproved? Whether or not it is, what evidence would it take, hypothetically, for you to reject that claim? Clearly it's not the fact that, as you point out in the second paragraph, there's "very little actual outrage."
So which is it? Is this or is this not a manufactured controversy?
A lot of the news seems to be from the director using the phrase "far-left outrage" more than any real outrage or reaction to the outrage. I've seen about as much right wing overreactions to the left on this film as I have left wing criticisms of the film, which is to say, fairly little. I do think it is manufactured controversy, but not a particularly political one, just media publications trying to generate traffic Hollywood tabloid style.
With that said, I haven't delved real deep into this one this is just my opinion based off what I've seen
Isn't your claims that the right are the ones inventing this outrage equally unfalsifiable though? It seems to me there is a bit of a double standard at play here in your portrayal of the situation and criticism of Odysseus' own theory regarding it.
I would say it is falsifiable. My criticism is that it's a statement made with no evidence. I would settle for that evidence, i.e. examples of left-wing outrage on a fairly significant scale. Show me efforts to get the movie banned and the companies boycotted that got some traction. Show me where I can find a large community of people talking about how evil the movie is. Show me some high profile film critics or academics really railing against the movie on ideological grounds. If you want to put a number on it, do a survey of how left-leaning moviegoers feel about the movie, and how strongly.
Just look at the article. Here's the "outrage":
A letter from five people saying the movie "gave [them] pause." I'd say that's a mild reaction, since the letter came from family members of people who died in the Aurora shooting during a showing of The Dark Knight.
An army base warning that threats were made against theaters showing the film. It's implied that it would come from right-wing incels, not the left, and a later statement said that they did not have "any information indicating a specific, credible threat to a particular location or venue."
A review calling the subject matter problematic. THE. HORROR.
It's nothing. I'm not saying no one opposes this movie, I'm saying that to call it wide-spread left-wing OUTRAGE is a manufactured controversy. It's not happening.
It concerns me that the simple act of telling an empathetic story for a certain type of character evokes "both sides" criticism. This seems like the opposite and equally-fallacious end of the "video games cause violence" argument.
I just posted a related topic within seconds of your post: https://tildes.net/~news/hvt/army_warns_soldiers_about_incel_threat_at_joker_movie_report_its_based_on_a_tip_from_the_fbi
Huh...there was 'far left outrage' about this movie??
Yeah, I didn't see much of that. However, the US Army has intel which prompted this: https://tildes.net/~news/hvt/army_warns_soldiers_about_incel_threat_at_joker_movie_report_its_based_on_a_tip_from_the_fbi
There's a take out there that yet another movie about a cis het white guy misunderstood by society self-actualizing with violence isn't a fantastic idea, but that's more of a defeated sigh than an outrage. Maybe it's just the circles I hang out in?
Yeah. The left can't so much as sigh or roll their eyes without the right saying it's hysterical screeching. The overwhelming "left" response to this movie is just indifference.
It’s meant to be sympathetic because the film, similar to The Killing Joke, paints Arthur to be a genuinely nice man who society beats down until he eventually snaps. He wasn’t inherently evil. The Joker may have never existed had Arthur not been failed by the healthcare system, had people not been so cruel to him, had he been treated with a modicum of kindness.
Does that excuse what he becomes? No. Is the Joker a sympathetic villain? Absolutely not. But sympathy is meant to be directed at Arthur Fleck, not the Joker.
I think the moral of the film is supposed to be “How many Jokers has society created because we don’t care enough? How many bombers and mass shooters might have gone down a different path had society not kicked them to the curb every chance it got?”
It’s not exactly ground breaking material and has been before plenty of times. This movie is simply using one of the most infamous characters of all time to do it.
I think there is a value to works that serve to humanize horrible characters. In doing so, they remind us that evil and horrible deeds are human deeds, done by humans who usually view their actions as justified, and often view themselves as being good people. They are not deeds done only be inhuman monsters, who are not like us, who are easily recognizable by their monstrosity, and thus can't be anyone we know. They are not usually deeds done by people because they were born innately horrible people, and they are not usually deeds done by people who do them for the sake of doing horrible things.
We can see this with Lolita, for example: throughout the work, there is the theme of how someone doing horrible things tries to make himself seem sympathetic, with the frequent reminder to the reader that this person trying to make himself sympathetic, trying to justify himself and paint himself as a good person, is horrible.
We can similarly see it with Der Untergang. People in it who are horrible, and have done horrible things, are still humans, with human emotions and even episodes of kindness to others, even when that kindness is, for example, in the context of brainwashing children and encouraging them to go to their deaths for an insane cause. Thus the existence of these human traits, and even human kindnesses—that Hitler and those around him were not, as the producer of the film noted, 'monster[s] from Mars'—does not mean that they were not horrible people. In looking for hideousness, we cannot just try to divide everyone into normal people and cartoon villains.
However, it's a bit unclear to me how one would go about this type of narrative with a literal cartoon villain.
Joker already had something like this in form of the Killing Joke, which argues that a horrible villain character and a good hero character are just separated by a single bad day.
I just deleted most of the comment that I had written, because I honestly don't think it would serve much use here, or be read in good faith. I also do not think I could write it clearly enough to be understood.
I just. This entire comment section is utterly depressing with how many people had the point of the (manufactured) criticism streak right over their heads.
This was the lowest voted post when I posted but ok
I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you feel comfortable writing your thoughts some other time, I'd love to read them.
1.) Joker isn't doing anything new. It's the Hollywood machine using a creative director to make a buck off of its love affair with the dollars brought in by violence, even if it's sadistic violence. That the director has fallen for a chance to "sneak a real movie in the studio system under the guise of a comic book film" is sad.
2.) Yes, everyone has a right to free speech. That also presumes some sort of responsibility on the part of the speaker. Anyone who would think about it for a minute wouldn't dump more violence into the American culture at this point, unless they had an economic or other self-serving motive.
I don't understand, what's wrong with approaching comic book films as "real movies"? Should they all be blockbuster schlock?
That wasn't my point. Those words were the director's. My point was that the studios were making money off of his desire to create what he saw as a real movie, with a big budget, while satisfying their itch to make another hopefully very profitable movie about the Joker.
That's actually what I'm asking about. What's wrong with that? It worked for Logan, and even The Dark Knight.
Whats wrong with what?
You said the director fell for that, and that it's sad. But I don't see how, it seems like a win-win. Studios get a safe, good investment, and people get to make a movie they actually find interesting. Audiences get a new experience and a new perspective on a known entity.