Because it was fucking awesome, that’s why. I don’t know what people wanted a Joker sequel to be, but it was great. I do understand why some wouldn’t like it, but quite frankly I thought it was on-par with the original.
You can’t use box office take to measure a movie’s success.
Shawshank Redemption is often regarded as the best movie of all time. It was a box office flop.
Battlefield Earth is often regarded as the worst movie of all all time. It was also a box office flop.
Using those two examples, obviously the only true measure of a movie’s long term success is whether or not they overuse Dutch angles.
If Folie a Deux doesn’t use a shit load of Dutch angles, maybe it’ll turn out OK.
No test screenings. Oopsie.
Me and an old roommate of mine tried watching the first. It was too depressing to finish, we didn’t bother. This image I assume taken from the sequel isn’t very promising.
Apparently this new one is a musical. This movie might be bad, but I really think it may be failing because the demographic for this one vs the first one are completely different. We’ll see, I’m going to watch it tonight.
“It is a collective failure, but it was right to make this movie.”
This is how out of touch they are. If it wasn’t the right movie, format, sequel, promoting, or timing for it, then it was actually the wrong call. You can tell, you know, by the results?
Nah, plenty of cult classics failed when they came out, but would be impossible to create at the time they became popular. So if you have an artistic vision and an opportunity to realize it, it doesn’t matter if the masses are ready for it, you should go for it. If the goal was creating a musical with Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix, the time was now and the result is at least interesting enough to be culturally viable. We’ll have to check in 20 years to see if it has any staying power as a cult classic.
When I watched Sweeney Todd in theaters, half of the audience left when Johny Depp started singing. They didn’t know what they signed up for.
From everything I’m reading were they even trying to be successful? I’ve heard a lot of stuff about how it was basically a character assassination cuz they didn’t like the fans and how they related to the character? Is that accurate?
deleted by creator
Who would intentionally put their time and effort into a movie, risk hurting their careers and risk losing the studios money? And all that to upset fans of the characters?
That movie could have easily went the way of Batgirl and be shelved for a tax cut.
I called it based on only ever hearing the title. You have to have made a ton of bad choices to wind up at a place where that title seems like a good idea
deleted by creator
No, its pretentious and not understandable to a huge percent of people. Exactly how the movie is according to all reviews. It doesn’t matter if the technical meaning of the phrase is applicable or not. It’s an obviously bad title for a mass market movie. For an art film showing at indie theaters it would be ok, but for a mass market film it’s a horrible title that screams “this movie is cringe!”
I mean, the first one felt like an art film. Sure, it uses the Batman IP, but when I watched it I didn’t get the feeling that it was expected to have mass market appeal.
Thank you. I agree.
