Joker: Folie à Deux Weekend Thread

[AniNate]

11 minutes ago, Eric Quinn said:

Moderation

 

@MightyDargon has been thread banned for 24 hours for continuing to troll Joker 2 and its results when I asked them not to.

 

I remember him going on record saying he mostly posted here because he enjoyed trolling flops. That's when I put him on ignore 

[emoviefan]

25 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Logan would have been an epic send-off until Reynolds got his money-grubbing mitts on the character.

 

25 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Logan would have been an epic send-off until Reynolds got his money-grubbing mitts on the character.

Logan was and still is a epic sendoff to that version of the character. And nothing in DP and W ruins that. In fact it goes out of its way to respect it. I live in that crazy world where I can mentally separate them.

[AniNate]

38 minutes ago, filmlover said:

We're not getting a Hangover 4 unless BCoop has officially thrown in the towel on his Oscar chasing after a dozen nominations and no wins across multiple fields to the point where he's desperate for any kind of work (he's not). The last one was a critically-savaged underperformer at the box office that would've killed a franchise if it hadn't marketed as the last one and the fact this is shaping up to be both a major flop and earned a hard-to-achieve D CinemaScore grade (the biggest black mark of all by far) means WB (and other studios, for that matter) is unlikely to bankroll Phillips again in the foreseeable future. Considering even in demand names are doing streaming projects these days, I entertain that going that route might be the easiest "get out of director's jail" card of all for him.

 

Cooper did say he was up for one last year. They probably would need to bring that budget way down from part III though.

 

https://deadline.com/2023/11/bradley-cooper-hangover-4-1235637659/

[emoviefan]

7 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

I remember him going on record saying he mostly posted here because he enjoyed trolling flops. That's when I put him on ignore 

I feel like there are a lot of people around here like that anymore even if they do not admit it. Or trolling potential future flops as they see them ala the Superman/CBM  conversation going on right now. Instead of you know just waiting until the movie comes out and even then the glee that some take with movies flopping is just kind of gross.  I mean if Superman does flop despite everything working in lt's favor this place will be insufferable like it's never been and that's saying something. 

[Block-Busted]

4 hours ago, AN9815 said:

I must say this is the biggest surprise of the year for me by far. I never expected Joker 2 to be struggling to make $40m OW. This is a total disaster. About a month ago I said on the Joker 2 thread that this would easily make +$100m OW and possibly go up to $140m. I had seen the reviews (around 62% on Rottentomatoes at that time) and I thought the worse case scenario was a huge opening followed by terrible legs, like Batman v Superman or Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. I thought there was real interest in this movie, the first one is very well liked and had incredible legs, specially overseas. Prior to reviews, personally I thought it was going to slightly increase WW like Guardians Vol.1 to Guardians Vol.2 and even with the arguments of "the first one was a cultural phenomenon that cannot be replicated" I thought it would still decrease like Wakanda Forever from first Black Panther or The Last Jedi from The Force Awakens, whose first movies were also cultural phenomenons that couldn't be replicated. This is joining The Marvels and Alice Through the Looking Glass in movies whose predecessors made $1b WW and sequel couldn't even surpass $300m WW, with the difference that Captain Marvel and Alice in Wonderland were not nearly as well received as Joker and that The Marvels and Alice Through the Looking Glass were not as poorly received as Joker 2, for better or worse. 

This thing is reverse Inside Out 2.

[Krissykins]

Transformers One faded fast. 
 

But I guess faded might be the wrong word as it was never alight. 

Edited 19 hours ago by Krissykins

[Block-Busted]

Okay, I apologize for posting a same comment over and over again. It seems like I was having bit of an error on my side.

[vale9001]

I'm asking if this can change Warner plans for Barbie 2.

 

As I said before Warner is the Major i like more cause It's definitely the Major tries more to make 200M movies are not Just safe. 

 

But there is the other side of the medal if you make Matrix, Inception, Barbie, Fury Road, Gravity, blade runner 2049, joker, lego movie etc.. It's not easy to repeat It.

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by vale9001

[Kon]

17 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

I feel like there are a lot of people around here like that anymore even if they do not admit it. Or trolling potential future flops as they see them ala the Superman/CBM  conversation going on right now. Instead of you know just waiting until the movie comes out and even then the glee that some take with movies flopping is just kind of gross.  I mean if Superman does flop despite everything working in lt's favor this place will be insufferable like it's never been and that's saying something. 

Most people in this forum don't seem to troll. They seem to be honest about their doomed predictions.

 

I've understand you dislike the negativity, but that isn't against the rules.

Edited 18 hours ago by Kon

[AniNate]

"No amount of clever marketing (not selling the pic as a musical; selling it as a Joker film) could save this. The biggest promotional cardinal sin of them all: Launching this sequel which didn’t have the goods at the Venice Film Festival. Why would any studio put a movie out there, particularly with the awful audience scores below, and let it sit on Rotten Tomatoes for a month with bad reviews? Sources tell me it was all part of Warner Bros appeasing Phillips, which is why they allowed him to make this auteur-ish Stephen Sondheim-like feature in the first place. "

 

I hate to say it, but this is a case where there ought to have been a bit more executive meddling. No one gained anything from debuting this at Venice.

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by AniNate

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, upriser7 said:

I have a question regarding musicals...I haven't seen many Hollywood musicals but I was very surprised when I learnt that the songs in the Hollywood musicals are usually sung my the actor/actress. In Indian movies where we have lot of songs, in 99% of the cases, the songs are sang by some other singers, not the lead actor, actress. Why is this not the case in Hollywood ? Wouldn't it make lot of sense to hire best possible actors suited for just acting part of the role and best possible singer for singing the song rather than have the actor do both the things ? 

 

1 hour ago, MightyDargon said:

There's actually plenty of movies historically where the actors didn't do their own singing (My Fair Lady is notable) but Milli Vanilli made people terrified to do musical acts that are actually lipsyncs to somebody else.

Movies in the "Golden Age" of Hollywood (pre-1970s) routinely used dubbing for big stars in musicals but it was hidden from general audiences.

 

My Fair Lady was kind of a gamechanger with musical movie dubbing. It was one of the first times the media let the audience in on the lead being dubbed in a movie. The Broadway show was a huge hit, the recording was a bestseller, and the cast had been on American talk/variety shows. Enough of the public had seen/heard the star of My Fair Lady (Julie Andrews): they knew she had a great voice and wasn't hideous to look at, so thought WB was crazy for not casting her in the movie version. Jack Warner wanted an established movie star and got Audrey Hepburn, an Oscar winner and style icon, but not really known for her singing.

 

Meanwhile Walt Disney snapped up Julie for Mary Poppins, let her sing, and the two movies were released in the same year. The media happily pitted the women against each other and reported on the "real singer" for the My Fair Lady movie. Both movies were huge hits, but the comparisons made dubbing look really bad to the public. Right there you had someone who had the voice and talent and tons of charisma—the total package. The attitude became, just cast people who can sing AND act for musicals.

 

An exception is when the movie is a biopic of a famous singer. If the singer was known for great vocals, the actor lip syncs and only purist types who want "reinvigorated" musical biopics complain a lot. Most fans just want to hear the original singer's vocals at their best. If the star was more about instrumentals or songwriting, or if the movie is doing "The Sad Last Days of a Legend", then the actors are more likely to do their own singing.

Edited 18 hours ago by BoxOfficeFangrl

[Torontofan]

1 hour ago, ZeeSoh said:

Musicals are comparatively rare in Hollywood as opposed to Indian movies where almost every movie has multiple songs. So it makes sense to have actors focusing on acting and to have professional singers do the singing part in India. 
 

Also if you look at the few musicals that Hollywood does release, many of them have actors who are/were also singers. For example Naomi Scott in Aladdin, Rachel Ziegler in West Side Story, Ryan Gosling in La La Land and Barbie, Gaga in A Star Is Born. 
 

Besides nowadays with auto tune and other pitch correction softwares and a little bit of training you can make almost anyone sound good. 

 

Also, Indian playback singers can be as famous as some actors in India...

 

Like Asha Bhosle, Udit Naryan, Kumar Sanu, Sonu Nigham, AR Rahman, Shreya Goysal, Arjit Singh are household names and these are living ones.

 

Dead legends like Lata, Rafi and Kishore Kumar are very famous people. 

[Torontofan]

40 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

 

Logan was and still is a epic sendoff to that version of the character. And nothing in DP and W ruins that. In fact it goes out of its way to respect it. I live in that crazy world where I can mentally separate them.

 

Gonna get hate for this

 

Deadpool 3 was a parody movie of the MCU in my eyes

 

Thats how I see it XD 

[charlie Jatinder]

May be $10M SAT 

[redfirebird2008]

2 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

May be $10M SAT 

Below 40 for weekend?

[Truckasaurus]

6 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

May be $10M SAT 

 

yiiiiiiiiiikes

[redfirebird2008]

“D” Cinemascore. You have to try really hard to royally screw up with the Joker character. They should have called the producers & writers (Bruce Timm & Paul Dini) on the 1990’s Batman cartoon for some advice. Hell, maybe they should have asked Mark Hamill for some advice as well. 

[emoviefan]

23 minutes ago, Torontofan said:

 

Gonna get hate for this

 

Deadpool 3 was a parody movie of the MCU in my eyes

 

Thats how I see it XD 

I mean it is the nature of the character that it's a piss take,  in some ways, on comic book/movie tropes. Not sure I would call it a parody but I see your point.

[Kon]

15 minutes ago, charlie Jatinder said:

May be $10M SAT 

That would be really terrible.

 

It's clear the terrible WOM is already affecting the box office.

[WorkingonaName]

3 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

“D” Cinemascore. You have to try really hard to royally screw up with the Joker character. They should have called the producers & writers (Bruce Timm & Paul Dini) on the 1990’s Batman cartoon for some advice. Hell, maybe they should have asked Mark Hamill for some advice as well. 

I for one do not want to see Joker bang Batgirl.