WB's JOKER: THE SEQUEL directed by Todd Phillips (TBD) 5 5

[paperheart]

Not quite on par with The Marvels mega-bomb, but pretty close

[Nothin' Butt Keys]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:30 PM, SpineTic said:

This scene wasn't even in the movie.

[alexgross.com]

WSJ has an article today entilted

$200 Million ‘Joker’ Sequel Is a Box Office Bust

“Joker: Folie à Deux,” the expensive musical starring Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix, hit the wrong note with critics and audiences.

pretty much since it was announced as happening, many people seemed to think this movie would bomb, and it appears they were correct. sometimes perfect one-offs don't need a sequel. it still doesn't tarnish the first one, which is a darn good, though very disturbing film.

[Gatsby77]

On 10/4/2024 at 1:11 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

Good. That's NOT the Joker and that's NOT Harley Quinn. Make an original movie and stop bastardizing the comics & cartoons.

100%

The first one was an interesting portrait of mental illness, but it was a *terrible* Joker film.

Edited 5 hours ago by Gatsby77

[koollectablz]

So I saw this today, I don’t think it’s quite as bad as people are saying.  The musical bits, some work, most don’t.  The plot is pretty much nonsense.

As a film about mental illness it’s ok, but then here’s the real issue for me.
If it’s a Joker film it’s just plain rubbish.  It’s set in Gotham City, it has Harvey Dent in it, it has Harlequin in it.  You can’t just use that premise and then ignore everything about the ‘Joker’. It’s the same as having a Batman film set in Gotham city but then have Bruce Wayne as a P.I. dressed like Colombo who just happens to have studied bats at university and never mention it again. 
This would have worked far better as a film like Unbreakable or Split and just used new characters.

The good - Phoenix again is absolutely terrific and Gaga is actually pretty good.

Then the rest - the best bit from the trailer (them both on the stairs) isn’t in the film, calling the ending divisive is wrong, the ending is just rubbish.  Large parts of the film are very boring.

Its not as bad as Madam Web, but yea, it’s not great.

[chrisco37]

Where’d they spend the 200 million?   You could’ve made this movie for 10.

[Bosco685]

On 10/6/2024 at 5:21 PM, chrisco37 said:

Where’d they spend the 200 million?   You could’ve made this movie for 10.

Does it feel like after the wild success of the first film he took WB Studios on a spending spree? Especially with how the studio treated the first film (three funding sources so it didn't get 'burned'.

[paperheart]

On 10/6/2024 at 2:21 PM, chrisco37 said:

Where’d they spend the 200 million?   You could’ve made this movie for 10.

total of $50M to Phoenix, Gaga & Phillips reportedly

[drotto]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:12 PM, paperheart said:

total of $50M to Phoenix, Gaga & Phillips reportedly

God studios are stupid sometimes.  The first did so unexpectedly well, and they tried to buy themselves a second win. They threw money at people that either clearly did not understand what worked the first time they did it. Or, they knew what worked and decided to throw that all away. The first was basically lightening in a bottle, and should have been left alone. Not everything needs a sequel.  

[alexgross.com]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:45 PM, drotto said:

The first was basically lightening in a bottle, and should have been left alone. Not everything needs a sequel.  

truer words have never been spoken- +1  

 

[chrisco37]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:12 PM, paperheart said:

total of $50M to Phoenix, Gaga & Phillips reportedly

Ok.  They could’ve made it then for $60M.  Where’d the rest of the money go?  Song licensing?  They didn’t spend any money on writing.