Tl:dr- critics and audiences often disagree by great amounts on many films. A lot has to do with the way critics who are often educated and experienced experts view films vs. someone else. A world class chef isn’t likely to give McDonald’s a 5 star rating compared to the best restaurant they’ve ever tried even if McDonald’s serves more food. It’s less likely some conspiracy against joker and more likely the bat movie had things they hadn’t seen, and or was more technically done. The themes and overall plot of the joker has been done a bunch of times.

Yeah. I do that.

Something tells me, based on what little I know of you, that you’d be doing the world a service if you stayed there, tutors and teachers and books can take care of the math. You can’t get a good dad in weekly after school sessions- so I think they’re doing just fine in your hands.

Oh! And of course Black Panthers sexy female assassin/body- oh. Well anyway.... so far asides from Wonder-woman- DC has managed to do pretty terribly in that department too. More so even. So I mean- maybe critics do give just a little higher rating when they see a film that has a main character that is something out of the norm... like.. a woman who can’t be interchanged for a male character with almost no notice- or a a mop. I dunnoh.

Both main female characters in guardians are... sexy assassins/body guards? And the main female through the entire main MCU is a... sexy assassin/body guard? Ok. Well guardians does have the emotionally vulnerable psionic power female. Oh. The other main female in the MCU is an emotionally vulnerable woman with psionic powers? Huh. Then there’s... Tony Starks Mother/Secretary/Love interest who shows up when needed... ummm... The wasp, who... does the same thing with ant man. And... a series of female warrior bad asses who pop in and out of Thor’s sphere without much ado.

We’ve seen Spider-Man get big screen reboots or variants at least 4 times in the last couple decades. We finally got a big screen lady spider as a supporting character in Spiderverse- but no one said between the films and cartoons that maybe instead of seeing uncle Ben for again or a dude get bit by a spider AGAIN maybe the female character with the near same powers in the same city could get a swing?

How many MCU movies are there? Ok. How many of them are dedicated films to a female hero? Ok. How many have the central plot line of the film, the primary drama and heroics- centered on a female character? How may marvel movies or marvel character movies have been made ever? How many of those... you get the point.

Perhaps the “freshness” of the property helps too. If you notice a pattern of certain movies that use “PC” casting getting higher critic scores- did you stop to think about the fact by default those movies and those characters have been seen far less and hence would inherently bring something new?

So is the Joker targeted by some hypocritical conspiracy? Is Batwoman or whatever being artificially boosted? Where money is concerned maybe. But the more reasonable and likely explanation is that critics liked one more than the other because it was more technically enjoyable and interesting for people who can predict where “softball” “easily digested” writing is going.

They want the story and details a certain way. When a franchise defies fan expectations it usually ends badly. Taking away Superman’s cape or the x men without their costumes is enough to seriously hurt a movie. We are trained in film for certain pacing and certain cues and structure etc. the more “block buster” a movie is usually meant to be- the more we can usually compare it shot for shot to other films like it.

Firstly- they work. They are good. Anyone can cook a dish most people have never tasted- but will it be GOOD? Usually there are reasons people don’t put certain things together etc with food right? So sometimes a Cook figures out ways to do that well- other times it is gross or confusing, and usually a cook in the comfort zone will stick to what is known to work. Mc Donald’s sells more burgers than whatever the best burger you’ve ever had is. They hit the boxes the most people will like. They stick to the familiar- and many people don’t want to be “challenged” or struggle through an experience. They want maybe a surprise or two and lots of the familiar.

The problem with “new” is that well- there is a reason that we see certain styles, writing, cinematography, symbolism, camera angles and tricks and shots and wipes or transitions and trends on sound tracks and sound effects, blocking, choreography, cliches, tropes, conventions etc.

However exciting or good XYZ film might be- a major factor in critics reviews are how original a film is. Now- many people love joker. Many will take offense to this. But it’s taxi driver. It’s a million films already done. It has some different plot points, great actors and a budget. It’s new to many who didn’t already see those other movies. It’s a new take on the joker character but not a new character archetype. The themes and everything else may be placed in big budget hands and polished, updated for modern tastes and audiences and relevance- but “sad man with tough life beaten by society and slipping into antisocial rage” is not anything new.

Now- here is a fact many seem not to know. Many critics don’t review a film based on how much they think you might enjoy it, how fun it is etc. They tend to be educated in film. They tend to have watched many works spanning many generations, foreign films and indie films and films you can’t even see online or in physical media.

Tl:dr- in most major denominations even the pope cannot make all water holy or huge amounts of holy water. The water must be intended for use in a sacred capacity and to be holy it must be treated holy. That which is profane (or can’t be done in church) can’t be done or with that water. There are some VERY limited and unlikely scenarios that could allow a lake etc. to be made into “holy water.” There are also limited cases where some body of water may be considered holy but that generally relies on a history with a saint or prophet or messiah or God and not just a pope or priest.

MOST RELEVANT FACT:
“Holy water” is consecrated water. It is generally part of sacrament. A priest may only create holy water for use as such. That means- a priest can’t just turn any water holy. It must be made holy for specific purpose of use in the religion. It also must be treated as sacred. You cannot make a bath of holy water because bathing isn’t allowed in holy water. You can’t turn a lake or ocean holy because you can’t play or pee or poop or any of the other things done in public lakes and oceans with creatures in them: in holy water. Not only can we argue that by violating this (or any other rules that apply to their faith) the water wouldn’t be “holy water” even if blessed as such- but it’s use in sacrilege would defile the holy water and it would no longer be holy water. Just water.

Now- here comes the kicker. This is pretty universal across denominations. So even where the others don’t apply or can be wriggled out of- this one is the topper.

In a history book, a historical movie etc that is still an anti semantic message- but most of the time in context most people will agree that it is not propagating anti Semitic sentiment. Paying someone to make and display a sign with hate speech while you laugh and hope your fans laugh to make YouTube money isn’t meant in any way to shine a light on hate or not forget or repeat history. Whatever the intended message there is a distinction between exploitation and exhibition.

So I mean... is he anti Semitic? We’ve just discussed ONE high profile instance of many complaints from various organizations about various imagery or language etc. from across his catalog. I don’t know the guy. Maybe he isn’t. Or maybe some part of him is and he’s not even aware or doesn’t want to face that. But he did do several things that he didn’t need to, were agreed by many to be beyond bad taste and common sense, and whatever reason you showcase the message “death to all Jews” that is an anti Semitic message.

3. Bum fights paid homeless to fight each other. People pay the poor or homeless to do tricks and debase themselves all the time. Why didn’t he offer someone without much money cash for sexual favors? “15 year old kid lets me poop on them for a Pokémon card!” That’s too far isn’t it? We can hopefully all agree that if you shit on a kid for money to make some abstract point about society that you’ve crossed a line right?

2. If the point of this stint in his own words was to test what people would do for $5- to see if people would do something like that for money... he already had his answer. He’s a paid personality. HE pulled that stunt and filmed it FOR MONEY. It was part of his brand. Meant to get views. If the point is what people will do for money... isn’t he already an experiment in that? Perhaps: “I’m so ashamed guys- I thought of doing this for money...” and then not doing it would make the same point no?

Oh wait. No. Not closed. 1. People DO hold up signs and make statements like “death to all Jews” ALL THE TIME FOR FREE. Whole nations have that as foreign policy. So... it’s not that crazy is it? And given the last... several thousand years of world history... of ALL the crazy stunts or extreme things he could choose THAT was the one? Hmmmm....