Joker 'JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX' (Phillips and Phoenix return for the sequel) General News & Discussion Thread

[blueharvest]

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Pour one out for the Joker fans (Jo Bros.? Sane Clown Posse?) who was expecting the Rocky Horror Picture Show of CBMs.

They got the Gremlins 2 of CBMs without the fun.

 

[J.Drangal]

Damn, I'm genuinely shocked that Gremlins 2 has such a reputation... I've always loved that movie.

What's next? “Robocop 2 is bad”?! (Just kidding, I know it's not much loved... but I like it also...)

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Damn, I'm genuinely shocked that Gremlins 2 has such a reputation... I've always loved that movie.

What's next? “Robocop 2 is bad”?! (Just kidding, I know it's not much loved... but I like it also...)

I love Gremlins 2 as well but it's allegedly bat**** insane because Joe Dante didn't want to make it and he wanted to kill the IP in the process. I believe this is the case for this film as well.

 

[DCDAVE]

I actually like Joker 2. Very realistic.

Spoiler

The movie was about Arthur Fleck so if you came to see the Joker and Harley tear up Gotham you were going to be disappointed. It was brilliant how Arthur changed after his only real friend, Mr. Puddles testified how he is terrified about what the Joker did. Arthur wanted to be loved for Authur. He was heart broken at the end. I don’t know how anyone could have been shocked at the ending. It was earned and you could see it coming. The guards hated the attention Arthur was getting. The musical numbers was in his head. I actually liked the Carpenters cover and the GaGa original songs. Got my old self moving to the beat. It was a total elsewhere story that was well acted and brilliant at times. Reminds me of BVS. A different take on the Superhero experience that fans obviously didn’t want. The good news is that Zazi is not micromanaging the directors and show runners or we would have got Bonny and Clyde vs Batman. Maybe the DCU will give us that movie in phase 2.

 

[BatLobster]

No one asked me to share this, but I saw the first movie on a psychedelic drug. Highly memorable experience 11/10.

Holy crap, haha. Man, that seems like that could've easily been a horrible trip but glad you look back on it positively.

I remember the moment when Joker killed Murray, it was pretty eerie and surreal feeling I got in the theater. It was uncomfortable, like we all just saw something we shouldn't have seen even though you knew it was coming. Can only imagine how wild it must have been if you were already tripping.

 

[dhandler01]

I'm pretty sure WB has learn something: if the director of an original movie don't want to make a sequel, they should look for a different director for the sequel.

From a bussiness perspective, if the director of the original doesn't guarantee a success for the sequel of 1B movie, they could try with a new and cheaper director.

That isn't learning anything, that is just compounding the mistake. Think how often you see a different director on a film that isn't just a straightline action film. (and even then if the director has a specific style) It almost always changes the tone and style and not in a positive way.** It can be quite jarring. You see this a lot in horror films where the original looks nothing like the sequels because of changes in the creatives. Imagine if WB had convinced Bale to come back for The Dark Knight 4 without Nolan...that is basically what you are saying WB should do.

The lesson to learn is, if the story wasn't written with a sequel in mind and the creator/director/artist/etc. isn't behind the idea to just let it go. Leaving aside personal feelings Joker was a rather unique thing that got a lot of praise, won awards, and changed some perceptions of what the genre could be. (Logan is similar but is still tied to a franchise) It didn't need a sequel it told a contained story and is one of the most profitable films ever. Take the win. Use it as an example of the creative freedom you offer, let others use it as a jumping off point. (not for sequels or a universe, but as the synthesis for new crazy ideas within the genre) Shoehorning a sequel is rarely a good thing and in the case of Joker it was almost guaranteed to be atistically weaker than the first because there is no passion behind it. Its a cash grab that kind of kills the end of the first one.



**There are obviously good examples...Reeves taking over the Apes Films is a big one but that is also a different scenario.

 

[dhandler01]

This movies sounds terrible but not a big fan of how much it seems to be awakening "Maybe studios should be more hands on and invasive" crowd.

We should bookmark this discussion for the next time everyone complains a movie they wanted to like sucked and blame it on "studio interference"

 

[Kon]

That isn't learning anything, that is just compounding the mistake. Think how often you see a different director on a film that isn't just a straightline action film. (and even then if the director has a specific style) It almost always changes the tone and style and not in a positive way.** It can be quite jarring. You see this a lot in horror films where the original looks nothing like the sequels because of changes in the creatives. Imagine if WB had convinced Bale to come back for The Dark Knight 4 without Nolan...that is basically what you are saying WB should do.

The lesson to learn is, if the story wasn't written with a sequel in mind and the creator/director/artist/etc. isn't behind the idea to just let it go. Leaving aside personal feelings Joker was a rather unique thing that got a lot of praise, won awards, and changed some perceptions of what the genre could be. (Logan is similar but is still tied to a franchise) It didn't need a sequel it told a contained story and is one of the most profitable films ever. Take the win. Use it as an example of the creative freedom you offer, let others use it as a jumping off point. (not for sequels or a universe, but as the synthesis for new crazy ideas within the genre) Shoehorning a sequel is rarely a good thing and in the case of Joker it was almost guaranteed to be atistically weaker than the first because there is no passion behind it. Its a cash grab that kind of kills the end of the first one.



**There are obviously good examples...Reeves taking over the Apes Films is a big one but thsat is also a different scenario.

I just said what studios will learn from Joker 2 bomb. I wasn't saying I want them to do that.

The idea of studios learning to not make a sequel to 1B movie is pretty unlikely, since they love to have franchises.

It's more likely they will learn to not hire directors who don't want to make a sequel (they just hire a different director). It's true that the tone could change and there is a risk to alienate audience, but Joker 2 shows this could happen with the same director too.

 

[dhandler01]

To be fair, you could argue that even in cases when they were out of sync, it's led to stuff like Batman Returns. WB gave Burton carte blanche because he was seen as their golden boy at the time, but I'm not sure I would say they were in sync in terms of the studio really understanding what they were making until they actually saw it.

I feel like both in the case of Returns and this movie, it could be a situation where the studio might not 'get it', but they still just choose to roll the dice on the director that made them a ton of money on the previous movie. And this was a case where Phillips/Phoenix were probably a package deal and it wasn't like they could really continue this as a franchise without them, so they probably wielded a lot of power there. The mistake WB may have made here was assuming this would just coast off the back of the original's success at the box office no matter what the movie was. Might not be the case.

I think you are probably being too kind, but likely correct. And what's sad is Returns got beaten up by fans and critics but is a way more interesting movie than Batman '89. (Batman is better dont get me wrong) Danny Devito's Penguin is just amazing as sort of the Mirror Universe version of what Bruce could be! (if it came out now he would get awards buzz) Pfeiffer as Catwoman was a force to be reckoned with. (to the point they were developing a spinoff in a time when that wasn't really a thing) and just Gotham in general...so unique and wonderful and different than Gotham in '89. Time has been very kind to that film.

But Burton wanted to make that film (and a Batman 3) unlike Phillips who told his story and was happy that he was able to break out of the comedy genre and stretch his legs a bit. WB should give him freedom, but freedom to tell the stories he wants to not make him tell stories they think will be profitable. He doesn't want to play that game that is why you never heard him rumored for tentpole projects.

 

[Kane52630]

What's next? “Robocop 2 is bad”?! (Just kidding, I know it's not much loved... but I like it also...)

Robocop 2 is no Robocop 1 but I still dug the hell out of it.

 

[dhandler01]

Pour one out for the Joker fans (Jo Bros.? Sane Clown Posse?) who was expecting the Rocky Horror Picture Show of CBMs.

Is that a thing...cause if so there isn't enough space for the emoticons I would need to mock that!

 

[dhandler01]

I love Gremlins 2 as well but it's allegedly bat**** insane because Joe Dante didn't want to make it and he wanted to kill the IP in the process. I believe this is the case for this film as well.

Its not alleged, he openly talks about it. It wasn't to kill the franchise so much as to show that the franchise was fine as a one off and the idea of sequels was dumb. So he made a dumb movie the way he wanted too. If you have seen other Joe Dante films it makes sense.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Robocop 2 is great. Not Robocop good, but worthy sequel. Very underrated. It's a very funny movie as well. The bit where he shoots at the guy smoking after he is reprogrammed, amazing.

Now....last night I was having a rough day with the kiddos before the wife came home. So she sent me to the movies. So, I watched this. With all of 5 people, including myself, in the auditorium for the screening.

I am judging this movie as a movie. Not how well it does or doesn't represent the DC character the Joker. As a movie, and a musical in particular....a good musical transitions between standard dialogue and the singing and bombastic sequences seamlessly. One example I will give is Hugh Jackman and Zac Effron go drinking discussing their lives and working together. Then in the middle of that conversation, Hugh gives his pitch to working for him and the song begins. Seamlessly. You're already invested in the scene and you don't even register the shift. Now....what if I told you instead of that, all the musical sequence would just stop the movie dead on its tracks and instead of singing like they're pros and doing good music, the actors have to sing like drunk people doing karaoke at a bar. Does that sound appealing? It's not. This was an abysmal disaster. Megalopolis levels of bad. Probably worse. If not for Borderlands, this would be the worst thing I saw all year.

1/5

Fans of Joker will hate it. Some fans may offer excuses like it's a masterpiece of trolling in the vein of Freddy Got Fingered or something. But for me, this is just bad cinema

 

[dhandler01]

I just said what studios will learn from Joker 2 bomb. I wasn't saying I want them to do that.

The idea of studios learning to not make a sequel to 1B movie is pretty unlikely, since they love to have franchises.

It's more likely they will learn to not hire directors who don't want to make a sequel (they just hire a different director). It's true that the tone could change and there is a risk to alienate audience, but Joker 2 shows this could happen with the same director too.

Oh I gotcha

 

[Daywalker89]

Damn, I'm genuinely shocked that Gremlins 2 has such a reputation... I've always loved that movie.

What's next? “Robocop 2 is bad”?! (Just kidding, I know it's not much loved... but I like it also...)

Robocop 2 is a great sequel imo, watched it the other week and for what its worth was entertaining af. I forgot how scary there future predictions actually were lmao

Holy crap, haha. Man, that seems like that could've easily been a horrible trip but glad you look back on it positively.

I remember the moment when Joker killed Murray, it was pretty eerie and surreal feeling I got in the theater. It was uncomfortable, like we all just saw something we shouldn't have seen even though you knew it was coming. Can only imagine how wild it must have been if you were already tripping.

Yep, That scene has over 90M views on the tube for good reason. Its the build up that does it for me.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Robocop 2 is great. Not Robocop good, but worthy sequel. Very underrated. It's a very funny movie as well. The bit where he shoots at the guy smoking after he is reprogrammed, amazing.

Now....last night I was having a rough day with the kiddos before the wife came home. So she sent me to the movies. So, I watched this. With all of 5 people, including myself, in the auditorium for the screening.

I am judging this movie as a movie. Not how well it does or doesn't represent the DC character the Joker. As a movie, and a musical in particular....a good musical transitions between standard dialogue and the singing and bombastic sequences seamlessly. One example I will give is Hugh Jackman and Zac Effron go drinking discussing their lives and working together. Then in the middle of that conversation, Hugh gives his pitch to working for him and the song begins. Seamlessly. You're already invested in the scene and you don't even register the shift. Now....what if I told you instead of that, all the musical sequence would just stop the movie dead on its tracks and instead of singing like they're pros and doing good music, the actors have to sing like drunk people doing karaoke at a bar. Does that sound appealing? It's not. This was an abysmal disaster. Megalopolis levels of bad. Probably worse. If not for Borderlands, this would be the worst thing I saw all year.

1/5

Fans of Joker will hate it. Some fans may offer excuses like it's a masterpiece of trolling in the vein of Freddy Got Fingered or something. But for me, this is just bad cinema

I am so happy I stayed hom. My condolences for you having to sit through that haha.

Also, I do think this will end up painting the first film in a more negative light. especially given the ending. With Philips being the director again, I don't think it'll be as simple as ignoring this movie.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Its not alleged, he openly talks about it. It wasn't to kill the franchise so much as to show that the franchise was fine as a one off and the idea of sequels was dumb. So he made a dumb movie the way he wanted too. If you have seen other Joe Dante films it makes sense.

That does make sense especially with how bad those Howling sequels are. Looking at his filmography, I've actually seen more of his movies than I thought.

 

[blueharvest]

 

[Filmfan93]

I will grab my popcorn for the potential historic drop next weekend

 

[Gothamsknight]

 

[BobJM]

Don't slap "Joker" on the title of your film for the second time in a row if you don't plan on the title character being the Joker, then. It creates certain expectations and when these are not met (especially with the way this movie ends), then of course people will be disappointed.

But the movie has also continually been called an Elseworlds story. And given how the first one played out 5 years ago, you would think that audiences (especially fans who are probably more familiar with the concepts of the DC multiverse and variants than your average General Audience member, etc.) would understand that this is not going to be a 'traditional' take.

Arthur Fleck wears clown makeup and kills people in Gotham City. That's this take on Joker--some classic/recognizable elements, but a brand new vision. Were you expecting laughing fish? Bruce Wayne is like 10 in this universe, so surely you weren't expecting a Batman to appear in this sequel to fight him... so is that change in Joker's lore that's more acceptable to you and your idea of how the character needs to be portrayed in order to have the moniker?

 

[Iceman]

Looking like a bit of a disaster at this point.

 

[Limonade]

Par for the course with most of the WB DC flix, at this point.

 

[The Shape]

The biggest issue with the film (which is leading to this negative reaction from the GA) is 100% the musical element. If you aren't aware of it going in, or not on board with it for the most part, I can easily see how it would ruin the movie for most people.

I didn't hate the movie. It worked for me as an epilogue to the first film, or simply just an extension of the character study of Arthur Fleck. I was down to give it a chance. I was even into the musical numbers in the beginning, but there's just too many of them. I was surprised at the sheer number of them, and they 100% become tedious and somewhat grating as the film goes on. I actually think the bones of the story are good and I wanted more from the plot. Had zero problems with the ending that I saw everything *****ing about earlier this week (thankfully remained unspoiled) and the last 20 mins were among the most interesting moments, but the musical sequences just take up too much time and definitely pump the brakes of the film's momentum, to its detriment.

Had there been maybe 2 or 3 musical sequences peppered throughout the film and a more fleshed out story with a few more exciting beats, I think this would have been much more successful. But I can just imagine people sitting there going "WTF?" when they keep breaking out in song over and over. I get what Phillips was going for with the musical element, but less would have been more in that regard.

Either way, I definitely kind of respect the big swing here. It's not a film I will revisit in comparison to the original, and it's definitely a film that's hard to recommend to others, but I'm not mad that it exists and I'm glad I gave it a chance.