JollyPieFedWhy No One Will Get Fired Over ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’
TheImpressiveXwww.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/jok…
1 Comments
Comments from other communities
You can't use box office take to measure a movie's success.
Shawshank Redemption is often regarded as the best movie of all time. It was a box office flop.
Battlefield Earth is often regarded as the worst movie of all all time. It was also a box office flop.
Using those two examples, obviously the only true measure of a movie's long term success is whether or not they overuse Dutch angles.
If Folie a Deux doesn't use a shit load of Dutch angles, maybe it'll turn out OK.
orca$100 says this movie bombs now and becomes a cult classic years from now.
“It is a collective failure, but it was right to make this movie.”
This is how out of touch they are. If it wasn't the right movie, format, sequel, promoting, or timing for it, then it was actually the *wrong* call. You can tell, you know, by the results?
HoimoNah, plenty of cult classics failed when they came out, but would be impossible to create at the time they became popular. So if you have an artistic vision and an opportunity to realize it, it doesn't matter if the masses are ready for it, you should go for it.
If the goal was creating a musical with Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix, the time was now and the result is at least interesting enough to be culturally viable. We'll have to check in 20 years to see if it has any staying power as a cult classic.
That article led me to this one, and now I think I want to see it for myself. Heavy spoiler warning: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/joker-2-ending-angered-fans-1236025470/
From everything I'm reading were they even trying to be successful? I've heard a lot of stuff about how it was basically a character assassination cuz they didn't like the fans and how they related to the character? Is that accurate?
Who would intentionally put their time and effort into a movie, risk hurting their careers and risk losing the studios money? And all that to upset fans of the characters?
That movie could have easily went the way of Batgirl and be shelved for a tax cut.
I honestly think Joaquin Phoenix is the kind of guy who would do all of that. I also think when your movie makes like a billion dollars you probably have a lot more creative control on the sequel than the people who directed Batgirl did. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, it just freaking looks like it.
I called it based on only ever hearing the title. You have to have made a ton of bad choices to wind up at a place where that title seems like a good idea
Given the context of Harley and Joker's relationship, it's actually an incredibly appropriate title. People just didn't follow entertainment news so they had no idea it was a jukebox musical.
No, its pretentious and not understandable to a huge percent of people. Exactly how the movie is according to all reviews. It doesn't matter if the technical meaning of the phrase is applicable or not. It's an obviously bad title for a mass market movie. For an art film showing at indie theaters it would be ok, but for a mass market film it's a horrible title that screams "this movie is cringe!"
VindictiveJudgeI mean, the first one felt like an art film. Sure, it uses the Batman IP, but when I watched it I didn't get the feeling that it was expected to have mass market appeal.
【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】I'm going to watch it tonight with my wife and despite the massive amount of negative reviews, I'm quite sure we will both like it.
Update: We liked it.
I watched it with my girlfriend. We both liked it. All the negativity seemed really exaggerated to me. I hope you guys will like it, too.
When I watched Sweeney Todd in theaters, half of the audience left when Johny Depp started singing. They didn't know what they signed up for.
Because it was fucking awesome, that's why. I don't know what people wanted a Joker sequel to be, but it was great. I do understand why some wouldn't like it, but quite frankly I thought it was on-par with the original.
Me and an old roommate of mine tried watching the first. It was too depressing to finish, we didn’t bother. This image I assume taken from the sequel isn’t very promising.
Apparently this new one is a musical. This movie might be bad, but I really think it may be failing because the demographic for this one vs the first one are completely different. We'll see, I'm going to watch it tonight.
ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝Neither Phillips nor Phoenix was even sure about making a sequel and, for a time, contemplated putting on a Broadway show instead, before ultimately committing to the movie and bringing aboard Gaga in a role inspired by the comic book character Harley Quinn. The idea for the sequel came to Phoenix in a dream, and he and Phillips brought the idea to Emmerich, according to sources.
In the end, some are saying that Joker: Folie à Deux is a very expensive art film. But when asked who the intended audience was, one outside source sums it up this way: “For Joaquin.”
I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall:
I don't want to make a sequel movie to Joker.
Well wait until you hear this: Joaquin has had a dream...
Oh dear.
And they are going to pay you $20M each!
I'm listening.
synae[he/him]In the end, some are saying that Joker: Folie à Deux is a very expensive art film.
Oh wow, that is exactly what I said to my friends as we left the theater
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 🏆I was interested when I heard it was going to be a musical.
I was turned off when I found it was just licensed music and would not have any original songs. Like... What's the point of making a musical if you're not gonna make new songs specifically for the story?
Ahhhh this is the first time hearing it isn't original music. I took for granted that a musical would have original songs.
The point is Joker escaping into familiar songs to cope with reality.
If they can somehow fit pre-existing music into the film, it can be fun to see essentially several high budget musical clips of known songs at once and also a film. Bollywood can be good at this. That is clearly not the case with Joker 2, but if they had made psychological mad sequences with Bonnie and Clyde having killing and crime sprees with psychedelical metal music etc, it could work.
IheartcheeseWorked for Moulin Rouge
SternThe caveat there is Moulin Rouge was a musical to begin with and didn't have any prior expectations.
Interesting that it had no test screening. Would the movie have been savable with reshoots and re-edits?
kamenLady.Only if they reshoot the entire film with another script, they practically did a Matrix 4 again, just because a minority of fans of the first film had bad takes they ruined what many normal people loved.
therealjcdentonIf only it weren't a musical
Guy IngonitoThe musical aspect was the only reason I was even a little interested
It's enough to quash any curiosity I have about it. I wonder what the overall sentiment is for musicals.
Personally, I've always hated TV episodes that turn a non-musical show musical.
Yes, same for me, maybe with exceptions, for example Supernatural.
Clone High, Buffy, and Mega64's musical episodes were all great top tier masterclasses.
I'm sure there are more I'm missing.
And Flight of the Conchords is a contender for best TV show of all time, IMHO.
That killed any interest I had in this franchise. The addition of Gaga solidified I wouldn't be watching this. One of the best psychological, low key dramas of the last decade, so let's make the sequel a musical and add a trendy pop star into it!
Not to mention Gaga is an overrated, overproduced nepo baby. But that's just my opinion
Box office isn’t everything, not anymore. They’ll make it back in collectible trash they sell to incels
Are there enough incels who are willing to pay for Joker merch?
There's a whole online industry dedicated to making more incels, folks like Jordan Peterson. It's been depressingly effective.
Manufacturing weirdos that are disconnected from reality is straightforward, and the fascists are investing heavily in it because from there, they practically push themselves into voting against their own interests with hate, conspiracism, and memes. Steve Bannon has explicitly stated that this is a core tactic of his.
Blaze (he/him)Because they have money to burn?
I liked it.
Same. It's not a bad film. It is a fairly logical progression from the first movie. I was actually surprised it wasn't more fantastical. There were several points where they could have escalated to a city wide musical caper, but they kept it grounded.
People spontaneously breaking into song isn't grounded
It's a conceit of the genre, it gets a pass.
Trying to explain why people are breaking into song doesn't ground it any more, and trying to make it "realistic" singing such as part of a stage show or rehearsals just weakens the strengths of the genre.
Agreed. It was an art film. Having read a lot of batman/joker comics, I liked it. It was a good elseworld joker.