I haven't seen it and judging by the dismal box office opening I would say not many did. But I have read some reviews including an article that was a spoiler for the ending. The first Joker was a marvel and an Oscar-winner. This one was basically DOA.
What does everyone think? Where did the filmmakers (who I think are very talented) go wrong? What would you have done differently?
4 people like this
Despite the clickbait headlines of it being a "bomb" with a $40 million US opening and an $81 million International, I have heard from dozens who loved it and quite a few who are waiting for the home release to rent. I have not seen it, and likely will not have time to before it goes to PVOD, but I absolutely loved the first one, and IMO Joaquin can do no wrong. I long for the day when a film isn't judged by opening numbers and algorithms.
5 people like this
I saw Joker 2 Thursday night, about 30-40 ppl in a theater for 200+ max.
The main plot dragged for me; IMO if you're gonna do fantasy musical pieces, go big! The song & dance scenes were mild.
No idea why the director, Todd Philips, made the choices he made, and nobody in charge challenged Philips' decisions.
Anyways, doesnt really matter. The key filmmakers & creatives all got paid above scale, and they will continue to make movies.
3 people like this
Joker was a great character study. A sequel, for the sake of the franchise, the storyline, tone, as well as box office requires continuity. Godfather II would not have worked had Coppola filmed Brando dancing about as he saw to family business. The filmmaker should have saved the idea for another character and storyline. The musical idea is intriguing but it doesn't work with an audience that had been engaged by its predecessor. The idea woud have been better left for a different character and film.
4 people like this
It just seems like the filmmakers didn't really have any concern for what the audience might want or where the story should actually go (not that everything needs to be fan service), just set out to do whatever they wanted/something different. There's trying something different with a sequel and challenging the audience, and then there's openly thumbing your nose at the audience without care. Feels like more of the latter.
4 people like this
Underestimating an audience whom the filmmakers believed would flock to any film with "Joker" in the title was their first, and fatal, mistake.
"Joker" was masterwork in its own right. This sequel feels more like a deal. An experiment that might have sounded good on paper but blew up in the makers' faces. Whomever believed setting this story to music thought bold but no one else is buying it.
There's a kind of arrogance present in the development of this story. Audiences don't cleave to that treatment.
Not sure I'll even watch it when it arrives on streaming. Which should be pretty soon.
2 people like this
Jason Mirch "Joker" was masterwork in its own right but this one is not going to do very well for lots of reasons listed in this very stream.
3 people like this
I enjoyed the movie but it was easy to see that it didn't pay off the way audiences wanted. The most egregious aspect of the whole thing is the budget. If they had kept a similar budget to the first movie, it would already have broken even.
2 people like this
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/joker-folie-a-deux-bombs-what-went-wr...
4 people like this
Cheyne Pettit You dont want a pay raise for a sequel? Philips & his ppl grossed over $1B for a corporation with the first Joker movie. Everyone is a freelance employee. Get the bag 'cause life changing income dont come around often & some creative talent are paying 20-30% commission fees before Govt taxes.
3 people like this
Dan MaxXx That's a good point but going from a 50 million budget to 200 million has made it almost impossible to make a profit. It was inconceivable that the first movie could make a billion dollars and no one should have been expecting lightning to strike twice. It's just meant that the conversation is going to be about the movie's "failure" at the box office which I think is a shame. However, as you say, I hope the people working on the movie got paid very well.
5 people like this
I don't think anyone made a mistake. The authors were given a lot of money and they made the kind of film they wanted. cinema is always a risk. This time, the authors were less lucky.
2 people like this
Great points! I haven’t seen it yet, but it’s surprising how mixed the reactions are. The first Joker was so fresh because of its raw character study—maybe the sequel just didn’t have that same edge? I’d have loved to see a new angle on Joker’s psyche or Gotham’s world. maybe timing as well !! THATS A HUGE THING IM STARTING TO LEARN IN ALL INDUSTRIES ... TIMING !
3 people like this
I have not seen it, but listened to the Fresh Air interview with the director, where they also played several of the songs.
Two things struck me:
1. The songs are bad. Apparently they are deliberately discordant to reflect the messed up mental state of the Joker. Phoenix can't really sing, and Gaga uses a very small voice. So it is a bit like nails on chalkboard, and not in an interesting way, at least to me.
2. The director clearly worships Phoenix (understandable), but apparently this also meant that Phoenix had an unusual amount of input, frequently brainstorming and rewriting scenes on the shooting day. The script already had two writers (one of them the director), so it sounds to me like nobody was ultimately steering the boat and keeping the overall view of where the thing was going.
2 people like this
The co-writer of Joker 2 is the same writer for Joker 1; oscar nominated before Joker.
Didnt think the songs were bad; they just sounded old, from my grandparents era. Big band Lawrence Welk crowd? I wasnt sure what time line the Joker world is set. It looked like 1950's with old cars and black/white tv sets.
2 people like this
I saw it. I get artistic vision and I see what they were trying to accomplish. But this felt more like a stage play shot on film. It's a hard left turn from the first movie which is why I think a lot of people will not connect to this right away. There is no service to fanboys (not that that's a bad thing) And it's a far cry from anything resembling a back story to a classic comic villain. The dialogue is very dry, the pacing is slow....this whole story could have been told in an hour.
2 people like this
It seems to me that the Joker 2 movie was trying to repeat the La La Land movie. But for some reason they didn't tell anyone about it. Apparently they were afraid to scare away the old audience, but they could not attract new viewers. Perhaps other viewers would be interested to see the gloomy noir La La Land.