Joker: Folie a Deux | October 4, 2024 | Lady Gaga is Harley Quinn in this 200M+ musical sequel

[MightyDargon]

6 minutes ago, Firepower said:

There's no Se7en 2/Zodiac 2 to copy either, Reeves might be in trouble.

Reeves ain't Todd Phillips when it comes to his overall filmography. In fact (IMO) Joker 1 was the only good movie Phillips ever made and it was more pure luck than anything else. The equivalent of Napoleon saying "I prefer generals who are lucky over generals who are brilliant". Too bad Phillips isn't actually THAT lucky...

[excel1]

55 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Worst of all, they didn’t cast Josh Hartnett as Harvey Dent!  😠 

 

guy is probably reserved for the Batman 2

[LVB]

24 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Either the musical numbers are really bad or they are complete filler that ruin the pacing of the film.

 

Both, actually.

[HummingLemon496]

5 minutes ago, Mulder said:

So...about that.

Edited Thursday at 08:36 PM by HummingLemon496

[HummingLemon496]

On 9/11/2024 at 9:39 AM, Mulder said:

RT score always goes down with more reviews, not up. 

This aged well

 

Never underestimate Mulder

[MightyDargon]

I mean, the actual RT total for CRITICS isn't that bad. It's roughly in the 39-40% range now. That's still far above plenty of mass market 10's turds like Age of Extinction that still managed to do credible business. What's really killing this movie is the godawful audience reception and plot leaks, not critics. Just so we keep it straight.

Edited Thursday at 08:43 PM by MightyDargon

[HummingLemon496]

Who else remember when the initial reviews were poor and then people were like "but the first one also got bad reviews, reviews won't affect this"? 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 08:45 PM by HummingLemon496

[Mojoguy]

32 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

Well, if it gets Zaslav fired quicker, it's all worth it I guess.

 

Zaslav had nothing to do with Joker 2 so he is in the clear. That was all the previous WB leadership. SUPERMAN on the other hand...

[Warmaster506]

This will go under BvS reviews at this point

[HummingLemon496]

That also means I was completely correct when I said a couple weeks ago that one day or so of sales was enough to tell roughly what this movie would open to. From day 1 of sales, the conclusion was Flash/Marvels range and now, one month later, the conclusion is. . .Flash/Marvels range. Nothing changed.

[Mulder]

2 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

I mean, the actual RT total for CRITICS isn't that bad. It's roughly in the 39-40% range now. That's still far above plenty of mass market 10's turds like Age of Extinction that still managed to do credible business. What's really killing this movie is the godawful audience reception and plot leaks, not critics. Just so we keep it straight.

Idk, 40% (right now, it will definitely go down into the 30s) from a 69% score for the first one is imo disastrous reception wise.

[HummingLemon496]

Just now, Mulder said:

Idk, 40% (right now, it will definitely go down into the 30s) from a 69% score for the first one is imo disastrous reception wise.

Also important to note that the first Joker has a really high average rating. It was more divisive reviews, unlike say Aquaman which had mid reviews (similar RT but a much lower average rating)

[LonePirate]

Look on the bright side, people. Even though the film is bombing with critics and audiences, it will likely clean up at next year’s Razzies.

[MightyDargon]

2 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

Who else remember when the initial reviews were poor and then people were like "but the first one also got bad reviews, reviews won't affect this"? 

 

 

That's....not really a great description though. Joker 1 had somewhere in the 66-69 RT range. It wasn't Schindler's List but it was above even stuff like Mario that virtually everybody watched. Now if Joker 2 had STAYED there then it would be legitimate but it clearly didn't and ALSO we had advance notice that a lot of the audience didn't like it either.

[MightyDargon]

6 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Idk, 40% (right now, it will definitely go down into the 30s) from a 69% score for the first one is imo disastrous reception wise.

Yes it is a fall, but just having a 40% RT doesn't inherently mean audiences won't see it. There's a lot going against this movie other than just the conventional "critics don't like it". If it was just "critics don't like it" then it would be another Mario/Deadpool situation. This is clearly...something deeper than just RT total.

 

The fact that it's got a 5.5 on IMDB when movies that get review bombed like Captain Marvel have a 6.8 says a lot more. On one hand you have a movie incels made a billion hostile Youtube videos about AND its MCU so it naturally has a hatedom. On the other hand you have a sequel to a movie that won a legit award. And it's THAT movie that has the 5.5. What does that tell you?

Edited Thursday at 08:55 PM by MightyDargon

[Firepower]

17 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

Reeves ain't Todd Phillips when it comes to his overall filmography. In fact (IMO) Joker 1 was the only good movie Phillips ever made and it was more pure luck than anything else. The equivalent of Napoleon saying "I prefer generals who are lucky over generals who are brilliant". Too bad Phillips isn't actually THAT lucky...

I know comedies are usually disrespected and considered a low genre, but Phillips made some good ones.

[HummingLemon496]

2 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

That's....not really a great description though. Joker 1 had somewhere in the 66-69 RT range. It wasn't Schindler's List but it was above even stuff like Mario that virtually everybody watched. Now if Joker 2 had STAYED there then it would be legitimate but it clearly didn't and ALSO we had advance notice that a lot of the audience didn't like it either.

I know, people said "but the first one also got bad reviews" as an excuse even though a 68% RT isn't bad -- it's just meh

[Firepower]

8 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Zaslav had nothing to do with Joker 2 so he is in the clear. That was all the previous WB leadership. SUPERMAN on the other hand...

Wasn't Joker 2 greenlight he was already in charge? I remember a headline like that.

[grey ghost]

21 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

Reeves ain't Todd Phillips when it comes to his overall filmography. In fact (IMO) Joker 1 was the only good movie Phillips ever made and it was more pure luck than anything else. The equivalent of Napoleon saying "I prefer generals who are lucky over generals who are brilliant". Too bad Phillips isn't actually THAT lucky...

 

Just more proof the success of Joker was a mystery to everyone including the creators.

[MightyDargon]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

 

Just more proof the success of Joker was a mystery to everyone including the creators.

Orson Welles constantly bitched about the films that he worked on. Even when they ended up brilliant. Because they were often not his true unadulterated vision. Creators not understanding why people connected with their work has been a thing forever.