"It's a huge disaster, but what is the fallout?" asks one source after the sequel to the $1 billion hit bombs at the box office and is rejected by critics and audiences alike.
  • pachrist@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • CCMan1701A@startrek.websiteEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
    388·
    2 days ago

    “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?

    • Hoimo@ani.socialEnglish
      193·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Glowstick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    339·
    3 days ago

    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

    • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      51·
      2 days ago

      Given the context of Harley and Joker’s relationship, it’s actually an incredibly appropriate title. People just didn’t follow entertainment news so they had no idea it was a jukebox musical.

      • Glowstick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        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!”

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          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.

  • Pringles@lemm.eeEnglish
    133·
    2 days ago

    I’m going to watch it tonight with my wife and despite the massive amount of negative reviews, I’m quite sure we will both like it.

    Update: We liked it.

    • GoosLife@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      2 days ago

      I watched it with my girlfriend. We both liked it. All the negativity seemed really exaggerated to me. I hope you guys will like it, too.

  • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    184·
    3 days ago

    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?

    • janonymous@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        I honestly think Joaquin Phoenix is the kind of guy who would do all of that. I also think when your movie makes like a billion dollars you probably have a lot more creative control on the sequel than the people who directed Batgirl did. Not that I’m saying that’s what happened, it just freaking looks like it.

  • Tikiporch@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    I think they’ll make their money back, but I don’t think part trois will be forthcoming.

  • VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    23·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • JoShmoe@ani.socialEnglish
    58·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      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.