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

[PlatnumRoyce]

I have a lot of thoughts about this topic but post was very long and its a bit too off topic for a joker thread.

Edited yesterday at 02:24 PM by PlatnumRoyce

[vale9001]

28 minutes ago, Mandatory said:

Most other countries with an annual film award ceremony don't even have a Best Foreign Film category, and the vast majority of the ones that do give out such an award (all the ones I've previously checked out, anyway) have rules that films submitted in that category or films made by other countries can't compete for their version of Best Picture. So, just about every country in the world with an annual major film festival of some kind--South Korea included--shares Paul Schrader's opinion that only movies made with enough of their country's hand at the wheel in the filmmaking process should be eligible for the top prize. Seems like a pretty worldwide perspective that's not exactly a controversial take, but I guess some take issue.

 

 

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

 

Not only for the production but for example here in Italy the David di Donatello (what's called the italian oscar) has a rule: the movie needs to be for at least the 70% spoken in italian.

 

Same rules for the actors. You have to act in italian for being nominated. The reason Chalamet didn't get a nomination for best actor for Call me by your name (the movie got a best movie nomination cause production was also italian).

While Josh o' Connor was nominated this year for a movie called La chimera, cause he acts in italian. 

[wattage]

7 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

There's an inherent tension between "world champion" and "Hollywood champion" that's easily glossed over when the award had a body that was inherently much less interested in voting for foreign films.

That about sums it up doesn't it. They're just inclined to vote that way anyway, sometimes a popular enough (in America is always couched in there silently) and well regarded foreign films can break through and the awards body wants that to happen on occasion because it's very worldly and helps with that world champion image that's just so very American lol. But it's still fairly rare. Shutting foreign films out explicitly would run counter to what the awards body claims to stand for and has claimed to stand for in the majority of its existence, so they just let the voting bodies natural biases take the wheel.

 

Again, which makes it very obvious what people like Schrader are actually taking issue with. But if it wasn't already obvious from that, look no further than him saying wokeness is ruining the Oscars and Hollywood needing to "focus on its own" when the American movie made by American filmmakers that's mostly in English, Everything Everywhere, won Oscar's. He's not someone I take seriously in any movie critique even if our viewpoints align briefly. Even the sequel to the ripoff of his work, it's not the ripoff anymore. So I dont much care to elevate his opinion on this, but that's me personally. 

[wattage]

30 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I have a lot of thoughts about this topic but post was very long and its a bit too off topic for a joker thread.

I could write an essay on it but the core of its relevance here js: who gives a fuck what paul schrader has to say about Joker 2 lol. Either as someone who's championing this film or hates it, I'm not particularly interested in listening to or elevating voices like that. There's so so so many opinions on this film floating around. Too many opinions honestly for how little money it's making I know tons of people haven't even seen the thing and have an opinion on it. 

Edited yesterday at 02:49 PM by wattage

[Mandatory]

44 minutes ago, wattage said:

Doesn't take a genius to know that the much smaller local filmmaking markets and their awards bodies have a very obvious reason for wanting to specifically make sure domestic films are the ones being given the spotlight and accolades and why that's different than the awards body of one of the biggest and most powerful movie making markets on the planet. The Oscar's mission statement is to celebrate motion pictures. Not American motion pictures, just motion pictures.

 

America and Hollywood takes up a very large global footprint, and many awards bodies in other countries are well aware that if they're not strict about it then a film from a other country with more reach and more money and the marketing and the might of a multi billion dollar corporations will just take awards any and everywhere. Conversely the Oscars governing body is well aware and always has been that they're upheld as one of the most prestigious awards bodies globally and have to do their best to take in all films from everywhere and judge them accordingly with the power and reach they have. And they often fail to do even that, so complaining about a couple foreign films winning awards is going to be seen as exactly what it is. 

 

Yeah, I know all of that. American films take up a large global footprint because people want to see American movies--not really a mystery. Other countries don't just exclude American productions from their Best Picture contention, by the way, but all foreign films, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. They're just award ceremonies for popular movies their citizens liked, as are the Oscars.

 

The Oscars want to celebrate movies from all over the world, sure, but it has obviously always been America-based and pretending otherwise is nonsensical. Celebrating US films over others isn't some declaration of war on non-Americans of the world, either. Describing it the way you do, as if there's some grave importance to handing out movie popularity awards that America alone shoulders for the world, sounds ridiculous to me. They've had a Best Foreign Film category of some kind since 1956, so it's not as if they suddenly now need to atone for ignoring non-American made films of the world for decades.

 

It's interesting to me that some put a lot more value in America's movie awards over the other awards of other countries, as if all the non-US awards are inherently lesser than and obviously don't compare, and then insinuate xenophobia is the only reason someone would have a different opinion on Oscar category qualifications 

 

Anyway, nothing about the Oscars will be any of Joker 2's concern.

 

[lookingformovies255]

 

[wattage]

5 minutes ago, Mandatory said:

 

Describing it the way you do, as if there's some grave importance to handing out movie popularity awards that America alone shoulders for the world, sounds ridiculous to me. 

That's how the Oscars voting body sees themselves. Which comes with the territory, as I said, with being part of a studio system that powerful and far reaching. Everything I said is about the way they portary and see themselves and have for much of their history and to a degree how others see them. I didn't say it was atonement either, just that they themselves claim to be and obviously take pride in being global in that way and think it's part of what the awards should be and their duty as artists and stars and moguls or whatever. The awards ceremony just is that way and has been for a very long time. That's just Hollywood.

 

You might've missed my later comment about his very rancid take on Everything Everywhere but I'm calling him something else in particular, not xenophobic. The Best Foreign Film awards, isn't relevant to the discussion since he wasn't complaining about that he was complaining about international films being allowed to be nominated for best picture when that's something that isn't new. The first nominations for a foreign film in major categories was decades ago, fairly early into the awards ceremonys inception and has happened here and there since then. But it was fine for him when it wasn't Parasite...for reasons. Other awards bodies have their own ends and goals and they have to be taken in context, same as the Oscar's.

 

Regardless, awards only got brought up because one of his many insane takes are usually around awards. Joker 2 won't be getting anything besides maybe a cinematography nom. That's besides the point on what the original comment was which was essentially "I don't care about Paul Schrader's opinion". 

[wattage]

28 minutes ago, lookingformovies255 said:

 

54% off Sunday with the holiday. 

[Mojoguy]

39 minutes ago, lookingformovies255 said:

 

Joker 2 boxoffice has become legendary just not in the way WB wanted it.

 

Perfect example of toxic WOM.

[wattage]

6 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:

Joker 2 boxoffice has become legendary just not in the way WB wanted it.

 

Perfect example of toxic WOM.

Radioactive WOM even 

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

That theater drop next weekend is gonna hit like crazy.

[wattage]

Smile 2 being a smaller film and not a lot of new films might save it from losing 2k theaters. Maybe. 

Edited yesterday at 04:10 PM by wattage

[Opium]

3 hours ago, wattage said:

I know tons of people haven't even seen the thing and have an opinion on it. 

 

I just read a full ass article for the Blu-Ray release of this where the author drags this movie only to admit that he didn't even watch it, the hate is becoming ridicolous, dull and so forced at this point just to fit in a sheep narrative of hating this at every cost, ironically proving the movie totally right in its main message.

 

[wattage]

25 minutes ago, Opium said:

 

I just read a full ass article for the Blu-Ray release of this where the author drags this movie only to admit that he didn't even watch it, the hate is becoming ridicolous, dull and so forced at this point just to fit in a sheep narrative of hating this at every cost, ironically proving the movie totally right in its main message.

 

I was going to just repeat my scathing review of this movie and Todd again but honestly I don't care enough about it anymore to bother. I just don't care for people who haven't seen a movie trying to take part in discourse about it's quality. There's lots of movies I think I'll hate so I don't bother watching. That's something everyone has the right to do. They can even say it looks like shit, or they hate what it sounds like. But people go beyond that all the time, as you said.

 

I don't talk about the films I've never seen like I can weigh in on their quality or give a real opinion. It's always going to be a thing people do unfortunately to whatever the new punching bag is. Megalopolis was it for a week. The next one will come soon enough as it always does. 

Edited yesterday at 07:04 PM by wattage

[ZeeSoh]

8 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I edited the post to clarify (just mean "theatrical revenue that goes to distributor") but yeah, somehow I glossed over that word in a way that just made me completely misread your comment. Sorry about that.

 

Still, I think this is deadline using an awkward definition not them claiming an insane studio share. It seems like "break even theatrically is just used inconsistently. For example variety said  Ant-Man3 needed 600M to break even theatrically with a 200M budget (lol) and $100M P&A campaign. 450M v. 600M is just a direct contradiction. However, 

 

look at what Deadline said about TLM

 

but in their "TLM to breakeven at 560M WW here's how" piece said at 560M WW, Mermaid would gross  "267M in global theatrical film rentals" (implicitly ~55% domestic box office rentals). "Struggling to break even" at 466M WW looking at a low 500M WW ending doesn't make any conceptual sense if they're comparing film rentals to "Budget + P&A" (250+140); however, it does make sense under a "P/L within x years" argument. 

It's possible Deadline's using a "box office rentals = film budget" definition of theatrical run breakeven but I think it's more likely they're just using an awkward term for something like "P/L within [small number of years] of theatrical release" / "at box office level to be generically profitable without needing to overindexing post-theatrically." 

 

Variety said IF "cost $110 million to produce, so it needed to gross more like $275 million to break even in its theatrical run" and 275M gets you to 140M in box office rentals using an optimistic 55/45 rate assumption (using IF's 60% domestic). I don't know what IF had in P&A but it was more than 30M (said by many to be a minimal base marketing spend for a major studio wide release) but perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there's a difference in how Deadline-guy uses it and variety-guy uses the term? 

 

If you poke around online you can find e.g. SNL Kagan's model outputs posted online and you'll get producers on podcasts roughly laying out their ultimate revenue scenarios.  

 

Yup, thats why I mentioned in my post that different people will use different formulas and multipliers to calculate the breakeven point and that I do not trust the trades too much when it comes to these calculations because they are biased, in my view, towards Hollywood and the studios. It is unfortunate however that many times we have to depend on these trades because sometimes they do have insider info and numbers on budgets and other things.

[Mojoguy]

 

 

[Supercom]

sinking like a lead zeppelin

[MightyDargon]

Was Phillips' Hogan movie also going to be a terrible musical set to the Hulk Rules album? And was there a scene planned where Hogan does it to Brutus "the Barber" Beefcake in the butt while yelling out EYE OF THE HULKSTER BROTTTHHHEEERRRR

[Firepower]

1 minute ago, MightyDargon said:

Was Phillips' Hogan movie also going to be a terrible musical set to the Hulk Rules album? And was there a scene planned where Hogan does it to Brutus "the Barber" Beefcake in the butt while yelling out EYE OF THE HULKSTER BROTTTHHHEEERRRR

Cringe.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

The worst part of all this is the wasted potential. I don't know how Todd managed to completely sideline Gaga's Harley Quinn to the point of making her a supporting character. I think a co-lead role with a fresh take on Harley that is fully fleshed out would've at least helped keep the RT score in an acceptable range.