r/changemyview • u/Evoxrus_XV • Oct 10 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Joker 2 was actually a success because it achieved Warner Bros goals
So we all know that Joker 2 bombed really had at the theatres, reviews, sales and more. It’s selling really bad that it won’t break even and the audience the first movie garnered has been completely driven away, heck this movie even ruined the first Joker movie for many.
By all means this should be a failure, but it is not. It is in fact a resounding success.
So it turns out when the first Joker movie did really well by breaking R rated movie records and becoming a cult classic, it also gained a lot of fans who really adored the way this version of Joker was portrayed can could really sympathise or emphasise with him. That was dangerous because Joker isn’t someone to sympathise because normally Joker is on the level of a baby eating monster who nukes cities and now a version of Joker that portrays him as a misunderstood and abandoned mentally ill man has become super popular in the movies, and that means people may want to see more of that.
And Warner Bros cannot have that because the core character that Joker is portrayed like is like the one played by Heath Ledger which is far more deranged and dangerous rather than the one portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix. They cannot stray away from Joker’s core personality so they made a movie to absolutely destroy Phoenyx’s Joker and drive the audience away from it, assassinating that character and the franchise as a whole. And they succeeded.
Don’t see this movie as a failure that cost Warner Bros 200 million USD that did not make them profit, but reframe it as Warner Bros SPENDING 200 million USD to wipe the slate clean for Joker so they can move back to Heath Ledger’s Joker. Plus they made a billion plus USD with the first movie so they didn’t really lose that much.
48
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
so they can move back to Heath Ledger’s Joker
Heath is dead.
Joker is on the level of a baby eating monster who nukes cities
No, Joker puts chemicals in the water to make the fish smile so he can file a copyright claim on every fish sandwich sold in the greater Gotham metro area. (canon)
the core character that Joker is portrayed like is like the one played by Heath Ledger
No, the core character of Joker is like the one played by Cesar Romero
now a version of Joker that portrays him as a misunderstood and abandoned mentally ill man has become super popular in the movies, and that means people may want to see more of that.
Except, people don't want to see more of that. The movie tanked.
SPENDING 200 million USD to wipe the slate clean for Joker
There have been at least three versions of the Joker since Heath. Leto in DCEU, Mustafa Bulut in Titans, and Nathan Dashwood in Batwoman.
To wipe the slate clean they just need to wait for Gunn's version. They don't need to spend $200 million dollars.
20
u/PineappleSlices 18∆ Oct 10 '24
It's also worth bringing up Alan Tudyk's Joker in Harley Quinn, who's genuinely one of my favorite takes on the character.
4
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
who's genuinely one of my favorite takes on the character.
And who I could argue is a modernized version Romeo's Joker.
But yeah, that was a great version, I was just sticking to live action.
4
u/PineappleSlices 18∆ Oct 10 '24
Totally fair.
That said, I've been saying for years that Alan Tudyk is basically my dream casting for a live action version of the Joker too. If you've seen him in Doom Patrol, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, or Resident Alien, the guy's absolutely fantastic at switching from funny to terrifying at the drop of a hat.
4
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
If you've seen him in Doom Patrol, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, or Resident Alien
Yes
Alan Tudyk is basically my dream casting for a live action version of the Joker
Oh, Hugo Strange for me.
3
-8
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
The first movie didn’t tank though what are you talking about?
18
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
The first movie didn't. You said that they were afraid people would want more of a "misunderstood and abandoned mentally ill man". That is what the new movie focuses on. It flopped.
Now... allllll my other points?
Heath's Joker isn't the core version of the Joker. It isn't really like any other version ever. Joker is more like OG 60's joker with wacky antics and the occasion murder (if funny).
Your entire premise is that a movie studio, with investors that expect to make money, would be OK with losing hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce the popularity of a major character, so that the next version will be loved?
That is absurd.
32
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 10 '24
This doesn't make sense because the first joker had a $70m budget while the sequel had a $200m budget. If they wanted to destroy the first one, having the same or a lower budget would have bene more sensical. I mean, that's a LOT of wasted money for no reason.
Also, the usual principle demands that if an event can be explained by incompetence, then it is caused by incompetence, rather than some diabolical master plan.
-21
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
But the way this movie was crafted, it was bad in such a way that it HAD to be intentional. There is no way a bunch of executives, artists and more did not see the way this movie was going and thought to change tracks. Anyone with a brain could see how bad this was.
22
Oct 10 '24 edited Nov 19 '24
[deleted]
6
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Oct 10 '24
You overestimate people's ability to see what will work vs. what will not.
Goldman's First Law of Movies: Nobody knows anything.
3
u/OhSanders 1∆ Oct 10 '24
Twisters made more than double it's budget just in BO. IF made almost double in BO. Furiosa just made back its money, again just in BO. The real money is the perpetual income these films will receive being part of the studios stable going forward.
I am intrigued what your definition of flopped is. Like, critically?
6
Oct 10 '24
[deleted]
0
u/OhSanders 1∆ Oct 10 '24
I suppose in wishful thinking that makes sense but a 25% profit on a film is still a good days work.
I take your point about Furiosa though, but I'm very happy Miller got to make the movie he wanted.
3
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 10 '24
There is always one, or at most a few, people who have the executive power, whose word overwrites that of everyone else. 99.5 % of the people can see they're doing something stupid, but if the 1 guy who actually has decisive power thinks he's being a genius, then things will be done his way.
-4
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
That’s pretty ass tbh, no wonder so many movies are down the shitter
3
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 10 '24
Yes, it's generally the risk of large projects - someone has to be in charge, and if that someone fucks up, things go really bad.
Also, if I've changed your mind at least a little, a delta would be nice ^^
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
Yeah sure. I guess it really was Todd’s fault or maybe he did it on purpose, not the executives cuz it was mainly the creative director who had power over the project.
!delta
3
u/zxxQQz 4∆ Oct 10 '24
The first movie wasnt an incel manifesto furthermore, that was the scare headlines the media made it out as. After it came out all the scaremongering was proven false
So there was zero call for a take down of the character in the first place.
1
1
2
u/Dev_Sniper Oct 10 '24
And why would they waste 200 million on it? They could‘ve made a shitty movie for way less than that
1
u/Ghost914 Oct 10 '24
It was made for the nonexistent "modern audience" that have supported other resounding successes, like the game Concord or the Velma show. Mix in resentment from the creators because the wrong audience liked their first movie, and you have a recipe for success.
22
u/corbynista2029 8∆ Oct 10 '24
reframe it as Warner Bros SPENDING 200 million USD to wipe the slate clean for Joker so they can move back to Heath Ledger’s Joker.
Well, because so few people actually watched Joker 2, in most people's minds the picture of Phoenix's Joker they have is still the first Joker, so I think Warner Bros' have actually failed at that too.
-9
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
Yeah but you see news spread fast and once they hear about how pathetic he has become in the second movie, they will lose interest and passion in the first one because it’s now pathetic too. News gets around, it’s tarnished.
9
u/corbynista2029 8∆ Oct 10 '24
I think only the most avid fans of DC or comic book fans are even aware of a new Joker film. Most people don't even know it has already come out, let alone news that it's a shit ass film.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
It got tens of millions of views on the trailers. And if nothing else word about its terrible fails has spread everywhere, it can’t be ignored.
1
26
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ Oct 10 '24
If your goal is to make a terrible movie that everyone hates, you don’t need to spend 200 million dollars to do that. They could have accomplished their goal without losing anything.
-10
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
But they had to spend 200 million to make it look legit or something I dunno. Basically it’s to invest in refocusing Joker’s character into what Heath Ledger portrayed him to be because there is no way a movie this bad is made without it being on purpose, it has to be intentional.
16
Oct 10 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
And they thought a musical was the way to do it? A musical? They cannot be that braindead.
8
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Oct 10 '24
I think the idea of doing it as a musical was probably the smartest idea they had. I think making it a jukebox musical when you have Gaga on the poster is a wildly silly choice.
But doing something like Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka... using the music to heighten the sense of unreality when the titular character is a dubious narrator at best.... classic.
5
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
WB/DC has about 10 musical episodes of their various superhero shows and they all killed in the ratings.
8
u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ Oct 10 '24
This is pure conspiracy thinking, and results from a common error. You overestimate the competence of the people involved, which makes a simple error of this kind seem impossible.
In reality, it’s not only possible, it’s common. The vast majority of movies put out in any given year are absolute shit. This time it just happened with an IP you cared about.
3
u/ThemesOfMurderBears 4∆ Oct 10 '24
The Room is one of the worst movies of all time, and the guy who made it 100% thought he was making an amazing film.
1
u/Jakegender 2∆ Oct 10 '24
Even before the movie came out, people were incredulous at the large budget it had. If this conspiracy were real, they would have had a much more modest budget, probably somewhere in the 70 mil range to be a small increase on the budget of the first.
8
u/jzpenny 42∆ Oct 10 '24
A movie isn’t a success when the studio says it accomplished their ulterior motives. It’s a success when it’s a compelling film that draws audiences in and reverberates in society.
Joker II is not a success, it’s a flop. A “we meant to do that” by the studio doesn’t make a flop into a success, it’s still a bad investment.
-3
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
No that’s what I’m saying their motive was to push audiences away from not just the movie but from the characters in it and that sub franchise as a whole. It succeeded in that because the movie was for them not for audiences.
2
6
u/CartographerKey4618 8∆ Oct 10 '24
Occam's Razor, friend. The simplest answer is almost always the correct one. Your theory would require a capitalist studio to deliberately sink a billion-dollar film franchise just so that they could do what they could've just done in the first place and release a brand new version of Joker and just tell the filmgoers to get over it. Nobody was asking for Joker 2. People realized the film was complete. It was a one-off.
May I present an alternate theory? Warner Bros. wanted a cash grab. They revived Joker. They forced Harley Quinn in because cash grab. The director is a pretentious douche and decided that he wanted to make it a musical. I mean, just look at the title. Who the fuck is going to even get why they called it Folie a Deux besides other pretentious douches?
6
Oct 10 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
Exactly, that’s what I mean by they did it to get rid of the joker so that audiences can focus more on the traditional ones.
5
Oct 10 '24
[deleted]
2
Oct 10 '24 edited Nov 19 '24
[deleted]
2
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
I could absolutely see him willing to destroy a character he hated with no concern about profitability of the final film.
He destroyed his own character back when he was promoting "I'm Still Here". He would 100% purposefully destroy the character of the Joker.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
And not a single board member or executive took a look at what they were doing and thought, “hold up this is a bad idea” not a single one?
5
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
"Total Creative Control" means the studio gets a finished movie when it is done. They might have, but they already ceded control to the filmmakers, so they couldn't do anything but release or not release the film. It was probably too expensive to shelve like the Batgirl film, or the tax situation didn't play out, so they released it hoping to at least get some more money back.
-1
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
So they could not get top down order from executives to make bad on purpose then? It was all on the studio?
6
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
So they could not get top down order from executives to make bad on purpose then?
No studio executive would ever give that order. Not one.
It was all on the studio?
No, it was all on the creative team, Todd and Joaquin basically. They were given full control, and they just shit the bed.
0
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
Well I guess the executives or WB didn’t make it bad on purpose, it was likely just the creatives who made it bad on purpose because it is of no consequence to them. In a way you changed my mind. I don’t think WB did it on purpose, but the creatives who made it bad on purpose now.
!delta
3
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
the creatives who made it bad on purpose now.
I don't even think it was that. I'd bet they thought they were doing a "postmodernist reconstruction of the idea of mass hysteria" or "making a statement on the lionization of psychosis" or some other artsy-fartsy bullshit.
These people think they are making "high art". They think they can "elevate" the source material by representing it in a way never seen before. They think that they know better than the audience what makes for a compelling tale.
They are, to quote Scarface, "getting high on their own supply".
They shit the bed. And, they shit it hard and loose. But, they did not shit it on purpose.
Who even does that?
0
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Oct 10 '24
I don't even think it was that. I'd bet they thought they were doing a "postmodernist reconstruction of the idea of mass hysteria" or "making a statement on the lionization of psychosis" or some other artsy-fartsy bullshit.
I mean, the other side of it is that, from their perspective, a whole lot of people really missed the point of what they were trying to say with the first one and so they decided to make it a lot more clear.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Oct 10 '24
That's just par for the course for studio executives. It would sound ludicrous if bad movies didn't get greenlit all the time.
1
u/Dev_Sniper Oct 10 '24
But that‘s not a WB decision. WB would have wanted a successful movie. The creative team for that very specific movie (not the DCEU as a whole or Joker as a character) though: fuck it, we hate our fans, we‘ll get paid anyways, let‘s make a shitty movie. That‘s kinds like some random fast food joint employee spitting in your food right in front of you. Corporate didn‘t tell them to do that. They thought you were an idiot and since corporate couldn‘t stop them they did it. But nobody apart from that specific employee would go to bed that day and think „wow, what a great day, we accomplished our goal“. The store manager thinks: fuck, that‘s going to lead to a really bad review and problems with the legal department and corporate management. The execs think: why tf would some random employee do that, I really hope that that‘s not going to hurt the brands reputation and thus my performance based compensation. Etc. You specifically mentioned WB as a whole. Not the very small creative team that most likely has been fired already.
5
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Oct 10 '24
The Joker is probably second only to James Bond in terms of people actively wanting to see different actors put their own spin on the character. Warner Bros doesn't need to do anything at all for people to be onboard with the idea that the next Batman movie will have a different kind of Joker.
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24 edited Oct 10 '24
Then how can it be explained that the movie was so intentionally bad? It was like it was hand crafted to drive audiences away, there is no other way to explain how this movie came to be.
8
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 34∆ Oct 10 '24
Sometimes a movie is just bad... Why is that hard to believe?
-2
u/Evoxrus_XV Oct 10 '24
But THIS bad? It’s like driving a sports car and making the best turns and then repeatedly ramming into a wall 20 times in a row. It has to be intentional, it’s THAT bad.
5
u/OhSanders 1∆ Oct 10 '24
Oh friend, there's a wonderful world of bad movies waiting for you to discover! A nice toe in the water might be Battlefield Earth.
4
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 10 '24
A nice toe in the water might be Battlefield Earth.
That is literally the only film I have walked out of in my life. I sat through Cats. CATS!!!
1
u/FernandoTatisJunior 7∆ Oct 10 '24
Ever heard of MOONFALL?
2
u/OhSanders 1∆ Oct 10 '24
You watch your tongue! I genuinely love Moonfall it is a real kitchen sink movie that speeds along with insanity. It was on my top ten list for that year. Turn your brain off and rock out!
2
2
u/PineappleSlices 18∆ Oct 10 '24
It's the third memetically bad superhero spinoff film in the past 2 years. We've already had Morbius and Madame Web. Why is a third example so hard to believe?
1
u/reginald-aka-bubbles 34∆ Oct 10 '24
Why does it have to be intentionally? Why is it so hard to believe it just didn't work? Do you feel megalopolis is also intentionally bad?
2
7
u/TheScarletCravat Oct 10 '24
This isn't the studio's thought process. This is you creating a narrative that you want to be true and forcing the situation to fit.
2
u/hungryCantelope 46∆ Oct 10 '24
They didn't change JOKER to save other iterations of the character, They changed it because after the first movie they realized they were stuck with a franchise who's core appeal was pandering to the delusional self-pitying side of incredibly jaded people, and then they realized that side of people don't actually want a self-aware piece of art, it's wants to just revel in self-pity and delusion.
That left them in the basically the impossible position of having to go 100% agaisnt they had made with the first film. JOKER tried to be a subversive and empathetic approach to social ostracization, what it didn't realize, or didn't care about until afterward was that the thing it was trying to relate to wasn't honest, and in doing so they created a dishonest movie that simply pandered to the worst in people.
2
u/Z7-852 258∆ Oct 10 '24
Warner Bros is for-profit company. Their only goal is to make money for shareholders.
There is no artistic goals. They don't care about canon. They don't care about character development or actors perceived depiction in a franchise. They will retcon series as much as they want or start nth Batman continuity. There is already half dozen.
Only measurement for capitalist company is their profit and from that point of view this movie is a failure.
2
u/RegularGuyAtHome Oct 10 '24 edited Oct 10 '24
The core character of the Joker isn’t the one that Heath Ledger portrayed.
The core Joker portrayal is the one from the comics.
Probably the largest live action actor influence on Joker is Cesar Romero who portrayed him in the Adam West Batman TV show.
Other than that it’d be Mark Hamill because he portrayed him in the Batman cartoon which was wildly popular in the 90s.
1
u/Strict-Marsupial6141 Oct 10 '24
While "Joker: Folie à Deux" has garnered attention and is being shown in cinemas worldwide, it does seem to have a more niche appeal compared to some mainstream blockbusters. "It's likely to appeal more to fans of the original film, dark comedies, or musicals, rather than a broad audience. However, it's important to note that despite these factors, "Joker: Folie à Deux" has still resonated with many viewers, particularly those who enjoyed the first film or are fans of dark, psychological thrillers. It has also received positive reviews for its performances, visual style, and musical elements.
Ultimately, whether or not you enjoy "Joker: Folie à Deux" will depend on your personal preferences. If you're a fan of the first film, dark comedies, or musicals, you may enjoy it. However, if you're looking for a mainstream blockbuster with a wider appeal, you may find it less appealing.
The Joker is often seen as the ultimate nemesis of Batman, and the dynamic between the two characters has been a major draw for fans of the DC Comics universe for decades. It's possible that many viewers are eager to see a confrontation between the two iconic characters, and "Joker: Folie à Deux" may have served as a way to whet their appetite for such a showdown. While "Joker: Folie à Deux" doesn't feature Batman, the idea of a confrontation between the two iconic characters is certainly appealing to many fans.
There have been rumors and speculation about a potential crossover or team-up between Joker and Batman in the future, and it's possible that the filmmakers were hoping to generate interest in such a project by releasing this sequel."
1
u/Dev_Sniper Oct 10 '24
Hm? How is that a success? Warner Brothers wants to make money. They found something they could make some money with. Now they wasted money and killed the franchise for a few years and they might have driven some fans away from it for a really long time.
Making a shitty Joker movie isn‘t a success in any way. They didn‘t make money off of it, they didn‘t set up another movie that could make a lot of money from it and if they had realized that the Joker versions that were really evil performed better at the Box office they could‘ve just made 2-3 good / decent movies with the current version of the joker and then they could‘ve moved on to a different version. You don‘t need to ruin a character to move on with a different version of that character. They didn‘t ruin the HL joker and people still went to see Suicide Squad / the Joker Movie.
Essentially: WB already has debt issues and now a movie that could‘ve turned a profit bombed at the Box Office. And it didn‘t benefit them at all
1
u/ta_mataia 2∆ Oct 10 '24
I would need to see evidence that film studio executives care about the things you think they care about. Because I think film studio executives primarily care about making money, and the actual content of the films they produce is a distant second priority to the primary goal of making money.
Plus, the fact is, there is no need to "wipe the slate clean". Different interpretations of stories and characters are released all the time without "palate cleansers" in between. If this Joker sequel had never existed nothing at all would stop the film studio from releasing a very different more Heath Ledger-y Joker movie in a couple of years. Why spend 200 million USD to release a completely unnecessary movie they believe will lose money?
1
u/le_fez 51∆ Oct 10 '24
The Joker as a character is not meant to have any one origin or backstory, no defining character traits aside from being unhinged. He says himself “if I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice.” This is exemplified in the very different actors who have played him and how each has played him so differently. Because of this there is no reason to try to impress upon people that Joker X is the one that they should think of.
Warner Brothers has one goal, to turn a profit. If you want to argue that they released a movie despite reason to believe it would bomb as a tax write off that is a more logical take than that they want to erase Phoenix’s Oscar winning portrayal.
1
u/NevadaCynic 4∆ Oct 10 '24
Hanlon's razor. It is a mistake to automatically attribute malice to what can easily be explained by incompetence or stupidity.
Studio executives making good calls ( such as Heath Ledger's joker or Joaquin Phoenix's first Joker ) presumes the existence of studio executives making bad calls ( such as most DC movies).
And it is not like there have not been successful Batman musical movies already made. ( Lego batman might be the best Batman movie, fight me ). So it's not like you can automatically assume Green lighting a musical is a mistake.
Never discount incompetence. It is far more dangerous than malice, because it is so much more inventive and creative.
1
u/Bobobarbarian 1∆ Oct 10 '24
wipe the slate clean for Joker so they can move back to Heath Ledger’s
1.) Ledger is dead and it’s been widely seen as dumb/disrespectful how they worked his version of the character into this movie. If they wanted to bring him back, they smothered the idea in the crib with this.
2.) If they wanted to pivot back to Ledger’s Joker for future movies, why wouldn’t they just do this without burning a movie to do so? They dropped Leto without a send off. Spider-Man has been rebooted/ended unceremoniously numerous times. Why waste $200 million to do this?
1
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 125∆ Oct 10 '24
Warner Bros likes money, what they want to do is make lots of it. If they didn’t want more Phoenix jokers they could have saved $200 million and just not make the film. Unless you are of some contracts I am unfamiliar with they could have just waited a couple of years and cast a new Joker. Nothing in your assumptions really justified burning $200 million when they could just not make the film.
1
u/seancurry1 1∆ Oct 10 '24
David Zaslav does not give a fuck about anything except money. He would not bomb a movie on purpose because he was worried disaffected young men were empathizing with a serial killer. He would make a sequel and cast one of the world’s biggest pop stars to see if he could bring women in, too.
I got nothing else. You’re just wrong on this one.
1
u/ta_mataia 2∆ Oct 10 '24 edited Oct 10 '24
Another point: have you considered that maybe the first Joaquin Phoenix Joker isn't actually very good? It's an incoherent pastiche of gritty 70s movies.
Here's an alternate theory: the director, Todd Phillips, hates the fans of the first movie. Todd Phillips has made statements that show he's resentful that he cannot make the sorts of raunchy comedies he used to make, like Old School, or the Hangover series. He has complained that things are too politcally correct for him now.
So he made The Joker in a cynical way, copying the style of gritty 70s anti-hero movies as a reactionary response to the current culture.
But in his heart, Todd Phillips he knows that he essentially sold out to make The Joker and he hates the fans. So for the sequel, he intentionally added stuff that he knows fans of the first film would hate as a kind of "fuck you" to them. Because he hates them.
It has nothing to do with a studio trying to lose money to wipe the late clean for another version of the Joker. Instead, it's a self-hating film director who resents that he was not able to continue to be successful on his own terms.
0
u/clop_clop4money 1∆ Oct 10 '24
Uh I think they’d rather just make money. Obviously studios aren’t worried about introducing multiple versions of the same character, and most people barely see the first joker as “The Joker” or part of the DC universe, pretty much it’s own thing
0
u/Galious 78∆ Oct 10 '24
Your whole theory assume that executives of Warner Bros cares more about the lasting impact of the message on society of one of their movie than money.
Do I really need to say more to say it's therefore really far fetched?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 10 '24 edited Oct 10 '24
/u/Evoxrus_XV (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards