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

[Mad Max007]

I bet Netflix heard stuff about the production of this film and dropped Todd before it was too late.

[MightyDargon]

1 minute ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

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.

A bunch of Harley's scenes were cut.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

Just now, MightyDargon said:

A bunch of Harley's scenes were cut.

Yep, it's completely baffling. Gaga should've come on as a producer to make sure her role wasn't massacred in the editing room.

[Mad Max007]

From the few interviews it does seem like even Phoenix wasn't happy with the end product. Look at his interviews from the first Joker and then compare it to this one's.

[MightyDargon]

7 minutes ago, Mad Max007 said:

I bet Netflix heard stuff about the production of this film and dropped Todd before it was too late.

What was he working on for Netflix again?

[Firepower]

19 minutes ago, Mad Max007 said:

I bet Netflix heard stuff about the production of this film and dropped Todd before it was too late.

That's not true, he dropped Hogan movie before he even made this one.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

I'm really disappointed in "critics" these days. Why aren't more coming to this film's defense? They gave every MCU movie a pass for a decade or more, but can't give genuinely creative and risky CBMs any slack? Critics seem to just push what the masses want, when they are supposed to be above that.

 

[TMP]

12 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

I'm really disappointed in "critics" these days. Why aren't more coming to this film's defense? They gave every MCU movie a pass for a decade or more, but can't give genuinely creative and risky CBMs any slack? Critics seem to just push what the masses want, when they are supposed to be above that.

 

This is barely a CBM. It has almost nothing to do with the comic character of Joker. As a courtroom drama it’s a boring slog; as a musical it’s an inept disaster with terrible staging and Joaquin’s performance is completely at odds with what he did in the first film. If Joker 2 wants to be treated seriously as an art film, it’s going to be judged on those metrics - and it’s kind of a mess when seen that way. Don’t see how critics are responsible for any of that

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

3 minutes ago, TMP said:

This is barely a CBM. It has almost nothing to do with the comic character of Joker. As a courtroom drama it’s a boring slog; as a musical it’s an inept disaster with terrible staging and Joaquin’s performance is completely at odds with what he did in the first film. If Joker 2 wants to be treated seriously as an art film, it’s going to be judged on those metrics - and it’s kind of a mess when seen that way. Don’t see how critics are responsible for any of that

It can't be a CBM when we're talking about CinemaScore, but an art film when we're talking about Rotten Tomatoes.

[filmlover]

15 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

I'm really disappointed in "critics" these days. Why aren't more coming to this film's defense? They gave every MCU movie a pass for a decade or more, but can't give genuinely creative and risky CBMs any slack? Critics seem to just push what the masses want, when they are supposed to be above that.

 

Maybe most (not just critics, audiences are hating this too) aren't liking it cause they found it to be a poorly-made movie. Being outside the box means little if the execution doesn't work (nor should a participation ribbon be handed out for such).

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Being outside the box means little if the execution doesn't work (nor should a participation ribbon be handed out for such).

I disagree. Doing something unconventional and different in a genre should always be given more slack compared to a by-the-numbers formula.

[Eric is Smiling]

Moderation

 

@ListenHunnyUrOver That's enough. I understand you really liked Joker 2. I understand you think people are being too mean to it. I know it sucks that people are dunking on something you love. I empathize. I really do.

 

But this whole "woe is me" schtick you're doing because people don't like this silly superhero movie is beyond old and beyond tired. The masses aren't stupid morons because they don't like a silly superhero movie you enjoyed. Critics aren't obligated to be nice to something because it "took risks". The people who made this movie are richer than we will ever be in our lifetimes and will forever be richer than we will ever be. Gaga nor Joaquin nor even Todd will have their entire careers implode and live pennliless on the streets. Plus, quite frankly, you may bemoan audiences for only liking pandering nostalgic toy commercials...but Joker 2 is also a nostalgic toy commercial. A corporate product that only exists to sell comic books and Funko Pops. Just like all those icky Marvel movies you're dunking on.

 

Continue this any further, and you will leave me with no other choice but to give you warning points and/or threadbans. I wish I didn't have to say this, as you bring tons of value to this forum, but this is sadly what the situation has amounted to. Also take note that this isn't the only place on the entire Internet where you can talk about Joker 2. So if you feel you need to continue with posts like these, there are other venues where you can take this kind of content. But either way, you're done doing it here. It's your choice.

[Firepower]

11 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Maybe most (not just critics, audiences are hating this too) aren't liking it cause they found it to be a poorly-made movie. Being outside the box means little if the execution doesn't work (nor should a participation ribbon be handed out for such).

It's anything, but poorly-made movie, but it does choices that people hated, some of them beforehand like the movie being a musical.

[Blaze Heatnix]

Whatever this Joker movie is called, it's Joker in name only. This movie exists to contradict the first movie, which is more than enough to piss off whoever enjoyed the first one ( me included ).  

 

Sure, Todd took "risks" and tried to "subvert expectations" with this movie, but that doesn't mean we have to like whatever he thought he was cooking with this flick. It didn't taste good and he used the Joker's name as a way to sell a movie that should have been called Arthur Fleck. Ohh, but if it had been called Arthur Fleck, people wouldn't watch it, right? He knows that, so he tried to come with something entirely different. It didn't work out and it deserves all the bad reviews it got, for trying to trick audiences into something it wasn't meant to be. This is no Joker and it insults the DC character completely.

 

 

[MightyDargon]

2 hours ago, Eric is Smiling said:

Moderation

 

@ListenHunnyUrOver That's enough. I understand you really liked Joker 2. I understand you think people are being too mean to it. I know it sucks that people are dunking on something you love. I empathize. I really do.

 

But this whole "woe is me" schtick you're doing because people don't like this silly superhero movie is beyond old and beyond tired. The masses aren't stupid morons because they don't like a silly superhero movie you enjoyed. Critics aren't obligated to be nice to something because it "took risks". The people who made this movie are richer than we will ever be in our lifetimes and will forever be richer than we will ever be. Gaga nor Joaquin nor even Todd will have their entire careers implode and live pennliless on the streets. Plus, quite frankly, you may bemoan audiences for only liking pandering nostalgic toy commercials...but Joker 2 is also a nostalgic toy commercial. A corporate product that only exists to sell comic books and Funko Pops. Just like all those icky Marvel movies you're dunking on.

 

Continue this any further, and you will leave me with no other choice but to give you warning points and/or threadbans. I wish I didn't have to say this, as you bring tons of value to this forum, but this is sadly what the situation has amounted to. Also take note that this isn't the only place on the entire Internet where you can talk about Joker 2. So if you feel you need to continue with posts like these, there are other venues where you can take this kind of content. But either way, you're done doing it here. It's your choice.

But that's the problem with Joker 2. It's not a nostalgic toy commercial. It's so committed to not being one that it wants to wipe out any catharsis the audience felt from Arthur Fleck Joker to prove it! That's not intelligent or "punk" or whatever, it's just boring and pisses the audience off. A nostalgic toy commerical (for an R rated movie) would have almost certainly been a better experience.

[MightyDargon]

3 hours ago, Firepower said:

That's not true, he dropped Hogan movie before he even made this one.

I mean, if he's gonna immolate his career, doing an Ultimate Warrior biopic would be more interesting than a Hogan one. The Warrior Christmas comic is right about where Phillips "sensibility" lies.

[Eric is Smiling]

4 minutes ago, MightyDargon said:

But that's the problem with Joker 2. It's not a nostalgic toy commercial. It's so committed to not being one that it wants to wipe out any catharsis the audience felt from Arthur Fleck Joker to prove it! That's not intelligent or "punk" or whatever, it's just boring and pisses the audience off. A nostalgic toy commerical (for an R rated movie) would have almost certainly been a better experience.

Okay.

[WittyUsername]

I think the fact that this movie goes out of its way to not give fans of the first movie what they want, and is so disconnected from DC that it doesn’t even have the DC logo on it, means that it can’t really be considered a “corporate product”. Regardless of how you view the quality of the film, it seems to be Todd Phillips’ movie. 

[Mojoguy]

3 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

I think the fact that this movie goes out of its way to not give fans of the first movie what they want, and is so disconnected from DC that it doesn’t even have the DC logo on it, means that it can’t really be considered a “corporate product”. Regardless of how you view the quality of the film, it seems to be Todd Phillips’ movie. 

The big ass Joker title is right there. Everyone knows this is DC.

[WittyUsername]

1 minute ago, Mojoguy said:

The big ass Joker title is right there. Everyone knows this is DC.

Never said it wasn’t based on a DC character. I’m saying that both James Gunn and Todd Phillips himself have gone out of their way to distance this from DC Studios.