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

[HummingLemon496]

1 minute ago, lookingformovies255 said:

It has also had a massive international drop, securing only $22M. So far, it has grossed $164M. It might not reach $200M if this trend continues.  

No, $200M+ is locked because of China. It'll finish in the $190Ms WW-China and then the small amount from China will bring it to $200M+

[Rusty]

On 10/12/2024 at 5:01 PM, lookingformovies255 said:

It's actually the biggest drop for any movie that has opened in more than 3,000 theaters. 

 

Yet another achievement for the butts-in-seats actress! I can't believe she was paid as much as Tom Cruise for "Top Gun Maverick," which earned $1.5 billion.  

 

The actress' $12m is an issue, not the $40m+ given to the two men who dreamed up a musical movie that middle-fingers the fans of the first one? What a strange take.

Edited Sunday at 05:07 PM by Rusty

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, lookingformovies255 said:

It has also had a massive international drop, securing only $22M. So far, it has grossed $164M. It might not reach $200M if this trend continues.  

Let me guess, it’s all Lady Gaga’s fault? 

[redfirebird2008]

I guess Warner has to view Joker 1 and 2 as a single project. Add the budgets together. Add the box office together. The numbers don’t look so bad in this context. Lol

[Chaz]

2 hours ago, Rusty said:

 

The actress' $12m is an issue, not the $40m+ given to the two men who dreamed up a musical movie that middle-fingers the fans of the first one? What a strange take.

 Best to ignore. This user was thread banned from the Gaga thread at a music forum this week for doing this same schtick. They’re just going around the internet trolling Gaga.

[PlatnumRoyce]

12 hours ago, wattage said:

quoted:Jeff Goldstein claimed a contributor to Joker: Folie à Deux 's poor performance was that the film's core male audience struggled to connect with Lady Gaga's interpretation of Harley Quinn.

user: No that claim was disputed by Warner Brothers reps themselves actually but you don't care about that 

Source (I haven't seen any of this discourse)?

One thing I did find somewhat notable (but haven't posted about) is that Joker 2's gender splits are pretty normal at ~60% male despite the trend I think I've seen in big flops where you expect to see "core audiences" overindex on pure flops like this (e.g. Flash being at something like 71 or 73% male). I really do think you see some "Gaga audience" in this which, given the overall godawful performance can be interpreted as an even worse hold by what might be a more "core  audience" (though on some level that's just academic given how far its falling). Alternatively, you can put a pro-gaga/musical spin but I suspect the total rejection of the film makes that hard to sustain. 

 

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Source (I haven't seen any of this discourse)?

One thing I did find somewhat notable (but haven't posted about) is that Joker 2's gender splits are pretty normal at ~60% male despite the trend I think I've seen in big flops where you expect to see "core audiences" overindex on pure flops like this (e.g. Flash being at something like 71 or 73% male). I really do think you see some "Gaga audience" in this which, given the overall godawful performance can be interpreted as an even worse hold by what might be a more "core  audience" (though on some level that's just academic given how far its falling). Alternatively, you can put a pro-gaga/musical spin but I suspect the total rejection of the film makes that hard to sustain. 

 

 

A retracted report.

 

Quote

UPDATE: 2024/10/08 17:07 EST BY JON ARVEDON

An earlier version of this article stated that Warner Bros.' President of Domestic Distribution Jeff Goldstein claimed a contributor to Joker: Folie à Deux 's poor performance was that the film's core male audience struggled to connect with Lady Gaga's interpretation of Harley Quinn, per The Wall Street Journal . A spokesperson for Warner Bros. Discovery refutes this claim. The article has been updated accordingly.

 

Regardless the idea that Lady Gaga is even 10% responsible for *waves at all of this* is, in a word, laughable.

[AniNate]

Sounds like CBR was just running with their own engagement bait interpretation of "The movie didn’t land with audiences the way we wanted it to."

 

 

[XenoMorph]

*Regina George Voice

Stop trying to make Lady Gaga happen

[Mad Max007]

Disastrous drop. People would have laughed if anyone predicted a drop higher than 50% just 3 weeks ago lol.

[PlatnumRoyce]

2 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

A retracted report. Regardless the idea that Lady Gaga is even 10% responsible for *waves at all of this* is, in a word, laughable.

 

Thanks. Weirdly, I don't see why this report was retracted: that WSJ line seems pretty undeniable. This just reads as WB's spinning a gaffe instead of clickbait aggregation misreporting a statement. The WSJ hasn't modified their article near as I can tell (though no archive.org to verify)

 

Quote

Gaga

 

Note that the WSJ doesn't actually say "Gaga" they say "Gaga's Character" which I'm not so sure is obviously completely divorced from other fairly "primary" negative fandom reactions. "Rich girl who manipulates Fleck into embracing the Joker persona for her own damaged reasons" isn't exactly Harley Quinn and really is a core part of the mental illness story Phillips wrote (and it's not e.g. a Bonnie and Clyde story fans seem to have anticipated).

 

Quote

While the first “Joker” touched a chord with male audiences, Goldstein said the sequel was a “deeper dive into mental illness” and that some of its core audience struggled to connect with Lady Gaga’s character.-WSJ Quote

I don't see how you spin this as inaccurately quoted except by claiming the WSJ misquoted you and demanding a rewrite from them. Goldstein undeniably said something that WB is saying he didn't say. I mean, technically "Joker 1 touched a chord with male audiences" and "some of the core audience struggled to connect with Gaga's character" are separate claims they're implicitly in conversation (though I know a female comic book fan who is angry at the film's adaptation choices of Quinn. I don't think that's what this quote is referencing but it hits the gap between the two statements) 

 

Edited Monday at 12:24 AM by PlatnumRoyce

[Claire of Themyscira]

Lol, this floppp.

 

Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn got the FINAL laugh.

[Gavin Feng]

6 hours ago, Claire of Themyscira said:

Lol, this floppp.

 

Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn got the FINAL laugh.

 

 

[HummingLemon496]

The Batman could've ended its run after opening weekend and it still would be the second biggest DC movie of the 2020s domestically, god damn. Actually DC's 2020s run is a lot like Disney's 2023 run where there is only one indisputable success (GOTG 3/The Batman).

 

 

Edited Monday at 06:14 PM by HummingLemon496

[UnapologeticKenny]

Variety is having the time of their lives with this news:

 

 

I thought the break even point would be higher, honestly. In 500/600M range - but maybe they are considering that not all the money came from the studio.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

24 minutes ago, UnapologeticKenny said:

Variety is having the time of their lives with this news:

 

 

I thought the break even point would be higher, honestly. In 500/600M range - but maybe they are considering that not all the money came from the studio.

I love the WB sources saying it would be profitable at $375 million. If the domestic/international split was 95/5, maybe.

[Seto Kaiba]

 

[Firepower]

15 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

Lol, I expected vod release by the end of this week.

[PlatnumRoyce]

35 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

I love the WB sources saying it would be profitable at $375 million. If the domestic/international split was 95/5, maybe.

I mean, it's in keeping with deadline's version of rosy post theatrical estimates

 

Quote

At that level, per finance sources, off a reported $250M production cost and $140M global marketing spend, The Little Mermaid could very well break-even. However, anything in the low $400M global threshold and this fish is apt to be sinking to a loss of around $20M...In a break-even scenario off a $560M global box office (meaning a net profit of $71M before participations and residuals are accounted for), we’re told that Little Mermaid‘s global film revenues would amount to $547M against its combined production, global theatrical and home entertainment marketing expenses of $476M

 

https://deadline.com/2023/05/little-mermaid-box-office-profit-loss-halle-bailey-1235383099/

To get from there to 375M you cut 90M of costs and 30-60M in revenue. 

[Rusty]

20 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 

 

This makes sense. I assume whatever few premium screens it had left will all be Venom 3's and it'll drop to the bottom of the Top 10 or outside of it anyway. At least Warner can try scrounge up whatever cash is available. I imagine streaming is where this will have its best success as people check out why it was so poorly received, but not sure the price point of a digital purchase will be worth it unless they've got a ton of deleted scenes/extra content to contextualise why the end result was such a mess.