People keep saying this, buts it’s just not true. If the movie was good nobody would care if it was a musical. The movie was made by people who wanted to spite the audience. That was the issue.
if you are going to be a musical you need to be extremely good. Or seamless in how you integrate the music elements. Tick Tick Boom and La La Land are good examples of how this went off well.
True. We've all watched Lion King and Aladdin and enjoyed the musical scenes, but those scenes were made by professionals and those songs were actually good. I watched Joker 2 and I can't remember a single song. Those songs were trash.
WB knows that, this is why they skip critics screening and straight to the fans and influencers, like they did to beetle juice, the only difference is, both fans and critics hate this movie.
Wasn’t it made to be a stand alone movie? I assume (with zero fact checking or research) that the C suite at WB gave Phillips a blank check to do whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted. He got an offer he couldn’t refuse. When I watched Joker in the theater, I wondered why it wasn’t titled The Joker. I’ve always heard him described as The Joker, not Joker. And somewhere along the way, I read a theory that he wasn’t The Joker but the catalyst for the actual Joker. I didn’t rewatch the last movie before watching Folie a Deux, but after it ended, it made perfect sense. The mob of disenfranchised and neglected Joker followers in the movie elevated him as their leader, but all he did was do a little dance atop a cop car and got arrested at the end. The first one had a very satisfying yet ambiguous ending. The reason I liked Phillip’s choices was because he showed how fragile and vulnerable Fleck was. At a certain point, I realized that Lee was essentially manipulating him to satisfy her own vanity and obsession with this powerful alter ego. He would have done it too, but because he was just happy to have a woman he loved in his life. The musical numbers from his point of view show his excitement for finding a partner he loves. Her songs were all pretty much “look at me now”. When Puddles testifies, it feels like the first crack. As “powerful” as he may have seemed, once he got back to Arkham, he was abused and overpowered by the guards and he didn’t have the evil, sadistic revenge bent of using that to fuel his wrath. He’s always been a misunderstood and emotionally traumatized wounded soul who just wanted to be a comedian but was too socially awkward to fit into society. When he gets broken out of the courthouse, he flees because what he cares about most is Lee, not becoming the leader of misfits. He never had it in him. I don’t disagree with anyone being upset that this wasn’t the expected story of The Joker. But I also feel like what Phillips did with this story was super ballsy and it may not work for comic book fans, it might tank in the short term, but the real success of a movie is in its longevity. This, and Babylon, and Amsterdam, and other box office failures might find an audience to whom those films resonate. I thought it was great and memorable in a way that Megalopolis wasn’t.
1. It wasn't very good. 2. Toxic word of mouth spread very fast. 3. The initial shock/controversy the first film generated was long gone. 4. WB and Phillips got greedy with the $200M budget.
You can let the Joker have his comeuppance in the end _and_ still tell an entertaining story. There's already no Batman in the mf lol. You gotta give the fans something.
I don't really buy this. When the movie was announced, nobody was claiming Joker didn't need a sequel. Most people were excited. When the trailer dropped, it had extremely high viewership too
This isn't about breaking our expectations or the ending that broke people's hearts, it's just not a good movie. I don't agree with all the positives you guys give this movie, I went in with an open mind knowing it's a musical and it sucked. The songs sucked, the story sucked, and the ending just felt like a nonsensical shocker that wasn't earned. If that's supposed to be Heath Ledgers Joker then it makes NO SENSE. I don't care about the echo it has with real life, I don't read DC Comics to speak about social issues, I never liked the Killing Joke cause it related to real life, I want to escape real life and be entertained by fiction and this movie failed at that.
Korey what you’re saying might work for any other movie, but it does not work for a movie called the joker. Arthur fleck regresses his arc from the first movie. He gets assaulted in the shower by prison guards, loses the girl, admits he’s not the joker, and gets killed by the so called real joker. That’s not what people want from a grounded joker. Penguin on max is killing it as a grounded Batman villain. Nobody wanted this.
A lot of people say Aurther regressed from the first movie, but I think he was the same person in both movies. In the first movie he wanted to be seen and acknowledged and he got that at the end of the first movie, but nothing in that first movie made me believe he could be the joker from the comics
@@tonyheard637 no movie joker is joker from the comics, but there was an arc and origin story told for Arthur fleck becoming a joker for his self contained universe. There was a transformation outside of the make up. There was a new found confidence and swagger when he met Murray in person. These guys are taking it over the top and blaming it on trump supporters and incels when people just think that was a good first movie.
@@tonyheard637that was my thought too. The beauty of the first film was an alternate take on this character and it was always in doubt if he was The actual Joker or if he inspired the actual villain. Fleck never had the makings of a supervillain (shout out Uncle June). Sure, in a fantastic world of a comic book movie, anything is plausible. He was always a sympathetic figure who was broken, abandoned and fragile. It’s not as if he was fueled by a desire to become a villain to validate his existence. His actions accidentally made him a celebrity. And what he wanted most was to feel accepted and understood. The “real” Joker felt more authentic to the character of someone who was truly unhinged. Fleck was too sensitive and all he wanted was to run off with his girlfriend. I see why fans of The Joker or the Batman universe would be upset but as someone who is more objective and not as invested, I saw the movie as TP continuing to make a gritty, downer, 70s style New Hollywood drama. It didn’t end well in The Parallax View, The Deer Hunter, Dog Day Afternoon, Network, All That Jazz, The Night Porter and other examples of the type of movie TP was influenced by. The risk was that comic book fans wouldn’t care about those kind of 70s movies to begin with and the kind of audience that might appreciate what he did would probably never care to watch a comic book movie. So TP took whatever insane amount of money was offered, reluctantly made a sequel on his terms where I believe the only audience was himself and maybe a small circle of close associates. The movie is great, but not if you’re expecting Joker to become The Joker. I empathize with those who are disappointed, but I absolutely loved how absurd it all was and got TP did something very few people in his position would do. Damien Chazelle also took a big risk and failed with Babylon, but i appreciate when film directors use their leverage to make bolder projects. It may have been a self serving project, but as a lover of 70s cinema, I loved it.
This one isn’t deep at all. The director made a bad movie. There was no studio interference, nobody made Todd do anything he didn’t want to do. They made a successful movie fist time around so everyone got pay bumps.
THANK YOU. It’s not deep. The director got an ax to grind and a blank check to do it with. Todd Phillips is to blame and he’s probably proud of himself. He squeezed 20 million dollars more out of WB.
The biggest problem with Joker 2 is the movie has little to say that wasn't already said in the first. Yea there may be some interesting themes like the Double Toasted guys are talking about here but that doesn't mean it's really interesting to watch as a Joker movie. If you ground a character so much then it's no longer the actual character anymore it's just some random dude. Joker 2 is basically Arthur Fleck the movie not a Joker movie so naming it Joker 2 makes it pointless.
@boomstickcritique902 exactly. Its like a batman movie where he saves the city but does property damage the second movie Bruce Wayne sees wayne enterprises being sued in court and it's one boring legal courtroom case after another, draining all the assets from Wayne enterprises and Bruce takes a job as a massage therapist. Ok, grounded, but BORING.
I didn't like the first movie for a bunch of reasons, but one of the most important was the constant abuse and cruelty directed towards Arthur. It seemed like it was the only way Philips could figure out to make the audience feel empathy for Arthur. From what I've heard about this movie, that tenency carries over from the first.
@@thenamelessone6119 It doesn't feel like that in the sequel. At least for the second half it just feels like the movie actively hates its protagonist as well as the viewer.
What? But Joker ain’t no superhero wtf you talking about? Neither Batman who is a sociopath who goes out at night to beat up poor people, even the Matt Reeves movie talked about it. Joker 2 specifically talks about the toxicity of idealizing others to the point of not seeing them for who they really are. What’s the difference between you and a swiftie? You both want a person to do specifically their usual schtick and if they don’t, you get angry and go ranting online in a wave of hate 🤷♂️
Man you don’t have to be an incel to hate this movie. Its message was even if society beats you down the system will still win and you’re a fool for trying to fight against it. It was just depressing and unnecessary
Exactly. I don't know how anyone misses this. Arthur may have been a monster but the first film was about what made him that way and the broken system that failed to help people that need it. The second film spits at your face and says "Oh yeah? Sucks to suck. Stay in line." I'm not sure why Todd Phillips felt there was some serious issue with incels glorifying the Joker. Incels are not why Joker made a billion dollars.
Exactly. The movie just punches you in the balls and leaves you like that for no reason. If I wanted to see Requium for a Dream i would have rented that instead. This is the first time I voted dislike on a DT video, hopefully it will be the last.
@@Hectorferjr2 The problem with the use of this quote is that if you act surprised, upset, and defensive that audiences or critics don’t like what the creator wanted to make, it’s really foolish to get angry at them for it because the creator themselves knew they weren’t gonna like it. It would be like if I went to a 5-star restaurant and was served a McDonalds Big Mac and disliked it because I was hoping for a fresh Prime Rib as opposed to a cheap fast food burger, only for the other patrons in the restaurant to get upset and defensive with me because “it’s what the chefs wanted to make and serve to guests, so the jokes on you for thinking they were gonna serve you a gourmet 5-star dinner.”
Hell, Rami didn’t like Venom either but he sure used the idea the best he could to make it grand and it showed in the final product, to this day it’s still talked about in different ways as a positive
It's not that complicated, the second movie destroys a character people loved in the first movie. They humiliated the character to the point of sexual assault ☠️☠️☠️
@SACosby-lp5td The first movie set him up to that. It's a great villain origin story. That's what the movie wanted from its audience lol It was so effective that most people WANTED Joker to shoot Murray during that scene before it even happened.
Korey, it sounds like you like the movie just because it was different and not for the content itself. Yes, there are people who don't like change, but from what I've been seeing, most don't like the story and presentation itself. Nothing to do with the change up. It's just a cash-grab movie that didn't work.
It's just a cash grab movie is not a fleshed out reason as to why this is a bad movie. I love how you critique him for not explaining himself when he does, and meanwhile offered nothing concrete in return 😂
The issue isn't that he isn't a "traditional Joker" taking over the city, it's rather the fact that he stays the exact same throughout the entire movie with no plot twists, a pathetic shell of a man. There's no point watching it.
The entire discourse over this movie and people who liked it trying to gaslight others into seeing it as a “misunderstood masterpiece” is literally the Batman v Superman discourse all over again. You can’t tell me otherwise. The sheer amount of weird defenses I’ve seen for this movie like “it was made to be bad on purpose,” “people are mad because it wasn’t ___,” “The critics are trying to fool audiences into thinking it’s terrible but really the jokes on them and fans of the first movie,” etc etc. It’s just another example of people not being allowed to have their own opinion on something, with film being an art and art itself being, you know, SUBJECTIVE! People need to be attacked because others need validation of their own viewing experience with a work of fiction.
@@JakeTylenol But there are some comments on this video that are saying these things. One of them is saying that people are "brainwashed" into hating it.
@@JakeTylenol I never said they were using these arguments. Plus it’s not like these arguments defenders are making for the movie don’t exist. They’re still really idiotic defenses being used to gaslight the people who didn’t like it.
People keep saying incels took over joker and that’s why Phillips wanted to nuke the character. But where are y’all seeing this uprising of joker incel parades and armies?
I am sorry. I like your reviews but this seems like a failed attempt at defending this movie. This movie was outright boring. The movie can be grounded yet can have some suspenseful moments and have some level of entertainment. The musical aspect / songs constantly interrupted the narration and felt unnecessary. This was a bad sequel which shouldn't have been made. It was simply made out of pressure to make a sequel and written around Lady Gaga
From what I’ve seen it’s not only hated for being a musical, it’s hated for being a bad musical. From what I’ve seen the music scenes were random , completely disconnected, and took ppl out of the movie.
Yeah they certainly did. And that's mainly because it's a jukebox musical and not original songs. Where in most musicals the songs push the plot forward, here the songs just felt like an interruptions to what was currently happening.
WHAT ARE THESE GUYS TALKING ABOUT? Didn't they say they fell asleep and had a really hard time making it through the movie in the original review... so where's all this praise coming from? WTF are you now playing Devils advocate and trying to make it sound like this mess "was intentional and brilliant". If you are trying to say "it's crews over all the idiot losers that fell for the 1st one and the little fantasy world they thought they created. A. They could have still done all that and still made a good movie B. WHERE DID THE MONEY GO...😂 how is this 200 million? The 1st one Was a poor copy of taxi driver and it wasn't even a very good one.
Double toasted, ya really don't understand that if your art is specificly to bore and annoy audiences, that audiences has every right to not like it, this isn't an art is dead situation, there wasn't anything of value for the audiences of this movie, Birdman did this audience focused reaction concept way better
Boy, you guys sure love blaming incels for everything failing recently. Crazy how this “small minority of online losers” can repeatedly tank these multimillion dollar studio projects. Almost like that is so patently stupid that no one with any semblance of intelligence would even try to make such a stupid argument. Movies don’t fail because a small group on online trolls, they fail because the creators made a dogshit product, for whatever reason. Sometimes they are looking to spite the audience like this movie, others are because you have activists who don’t remotely give a shit about the property they are adapting and try to shoehorn their own personal politics in it. Sooner or later, it’s going to become “The Boy Who Cried Incel”, where the next time you look to blame “online trolls”, “toxic fandom”, “incels” or whatever other internet buzzword for people you disagree with politically, they are going to rightfully tune out your nonsense.
Korey is starting to sound like those "Chronically online" people he's always criticizing, right down to using dumb buzzwords and acting like a total Redditor.
Making a sequel for a movie that already established that didnt need a sequel and the moment they confirmed that this will be a musical, that definitely threw people off and made some people not even want to watch it.
@@TheKillaShowI have seen some good movies that flopped, Dredd (the Judge Dredd reboot) that was a good movie and that flopped, Doctor Sleep (a continuation of The Shining) that was a good movie and that flopped, The Incredible Hulk was a good movie and that flopped, James Gunn's Suicide Squad was a good movie and that flopped. Not every good movie is going to make a lot of money at the Box office, just like not every bad movie is going to be a flop.
@@TheKillaShowFalse. There are people in this world that literally don’t care for musicals. I care for musicals but I don’t care for a Joker musical. I prolly won’t watch this till it hits Max and even then I might not want to
@@TheKillaShow Dude, musicals aren't popular, full stop. If the movie was good, people would have gone to see it, but not as many if the movie was just a sequel with a similar direction.
I didn't want Arthur Fleck to be a genius mastermind who gets away with everything. He's institutionalized at the end of the previous one, and I never thought he was this "heroic chaos" figure either. He was a product of both his environment and someone who gave up on fighting his own selfish nature. This sequel and its discourse feels like I'm watching a fight between two parties I don't understand.
Seems like Todd Phillips hated a certain crowd that liked the movie and said, "Nope." I think it might be a cult movie in a few years or it will be another divisive movie that flopped.
He showed in the second movie that despite seeing Arthur as a person in the first movie, they didn't really feel for him despite the message about the lack of compassion in the world. You all still wanted him to get worse and to end up being a typical maniac serial killer Joker. That's the point, if any of you actually watched the first movie then you know Arthur can never be that. That's the point that none of you care about Arthur and only want Joker, and movie shows it, and Philips didn't want to dismiss Arthur and just turn him into a theme park supervillain. Why is it so hard to understand. They just stayed true to the character
The entire last 30 ish minutes of the film felt like my problem with the talk show scene in the first movie amplified by 10. Having Arthur basically stop the movie to scream about how he's always been the bad guy and doesnt deserve this admiration forced on him could've been an interesting element of his psyche to explore because I personally never expected this guy to actually begin to embody the traits associated with the Joker we know. But it really just felt like the writers were projecting their distaste towards the audience regardless of if they sympathized with his actions or not. The supposed incel crowd was never going to internalize what he was saying because they're just mad he went out waving the white flag, and everyone else who knows better are practically being spoonfed morality pointers like illiterate toddlers. It's what brought down all the courtroom drama stuff in the film by far because there's no nuance in anything conveyed here
Im confused are they blaming the films failure solely due to incels? I have seen men and women dislike this film. Also, the framing of traditional joker as a incel symbol was wild.
Writer is to blame for attempting to change the tone of the movie into something the audience didn't ask for. Even worse when the writer tries mocking and insulting the fans out of spite for liking the original.
Korey: "Joker 2 is unrealistic because a psycho killer like Arthur wouldn't have a girlfriend. He would be all alone and single" Does Korey not remember all those killers who had a lot of women lining up? Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy? Just to name a few, and it's weird because he brings up those people later in the review but to make a completely different point. Korey used to be better than this but seems to have a hard on against looser men or virgins, or associating a large fan of the first as these type of guys, really weird.
@@xLordOfNothingx you have a child’s understanding of the world around you if you think that’s true. there is absolutely a wrong message you can take from movies like taxi driver, joker, american psycho, and shows like the sopranos.
I like most of your videos, but this one... Phillips made the film out of spite. He made it clear he hated superhero films and was pissed the first film made $1 billion. Seriously the "oh, you just didn’t get it" rhetoric is condescending AF. No... maybe it should occur to you it's just a bad movie? Stop gaslighting people.
Why would they give 200 million just for it to get pissed away I'm sorry it makes no sense. The SAME company that takes cartoons off to save millions? Yeah right
The said thing is, it's not about incels and stuff. Author was a guy beaten as a child and abused every step of the way but he tried his damn best to still live a good life with a system that kept beating him down. The system turned him into a monster and it wasn't his fault. It was made very clear he was mentally ill because of the child abuse and he still took care of his mother. It was the best when he finally embraced the madness cause everyone else fail him. If he still died in the movie to keep it grounded fine. But they should have keep him fighting til the end because it wasn't his fault he was the way he was. The first movie I don't think anyone who liked the movie thought he was a lover, sad to be alone. They saw a human trying to leave his best life in that evil world.
According to Deadline at least $50m of the reported $200m production budget went to the trio of Phillips, Phoenix & Gaga! Also, Phillips was given Final Cut on the movie cos of the roughly $2.5bn the first movie & the Hangover movies grossed worldwide plus they did ZERO audience testing of the movie!
@@michaelstrong5383 That budget on a relatively grounded comic-book movie with substantially less VFX shots & locations than a standard blockbuster makes no sense at all! A reasonable increase from that $55-70m to around $80-100m MAX would've made much more sense!
@@Shadowman4710Good movies that fail financially still have a GOOD Critic and or Audience score. Joker 2 had a horrible box office and awful reviews from critics and fans. The first movie being Good most definitely helped it financially. Word of mouth does wonders for a films box office.
The director ruined himself. He literally built a film to hate people. Mad that it was loved and hailed as one of the greatest... Then doubled down his own personal hate by making a movie to make those that loved his movie hate it. So now, everyone hates it. 😂😂😂 Joker 2 didn't write itself. You can't make this stuff up. Todd got what he deserved. 😂
What made the original great was the ambiguity: the film was left open for interpretation leaving the audience to decide what was and wasn’t in his head. Here we KNOW what’s in his head.
At the end of the day, for better or worse, Joker wasn't Joker. So why set this in Gotham? Why include Harley Quinn? Why include Harvey Dent? Even the Waynes were referenced in the first movie. Arthur Fleck's story is a road to nowhere. This can't even be considered an elseworlds/alt-universe Joker. Arthur lived a pathetic, abused life, lashed out, and died a pathetic death. If you want to deconstruct charismatic villains, there are better, more meaningful ways to do so.
@@shaunsmith9013 This Joker was grounded to the extent that it had no business being a Joker film. It would have been better if the title was Arthur Fleck. Btw, I'm all for a movie examining the themes and real life issues this one attempts to. But using the Clown Prince of Crime's name in the title, and Gotham as the backdrop, there are expectations.
The goal of making a movie is to sell an entertaining product😂😂😂😂😂the arrogance of Todd Phillips to subvert the audiences expectations after the gave him a billion dollar success😂😂😂......he's getting wat he deserves
This movie had all the seedlings to be great and Todd fumbles. He builds up these moments where you think it’ll go somewhere and then he just ruins it and drops an irrelevant musical scene in🤦🏿♂️
I like when characters change. But Arthur didn’t just change, he devolved. They completely regressed him back to who he was in the beginning of the same movie. Back to the character nobody liked. If you were going to change him, you should’ve made the change make sense.
Here's the thing. Joker 1 was divisive. It split the audience in half, and it still made a ton of money. Whatever you think about the movie or its politics, they cornered a market. Joker 2, basically from the get-go, was marketed as a complete change of genre, splits the focus from Arthur/Joker to him and Lee/Harley, and to cap it off, the text of the movie is actively trying to piss off the very people who made the first one a hit. What the fuck did they expect to happen here? The people who hated Joker 1 aren't suddenly going to change their minds because the movie is suddenly agreeing with what they already said because most people aren't that stupid and can see a cynical marketing shift for what it is, and the ones who loved it are gonna realise the filmmakers hold them in giggling contempt.
Yes the biggest problem with Joker 2 is its a fuck you to the fans of the first. Why make a sequel for the sole purpose of saying screw you to the ones who liked the first?
“Actively trying to piss people off” I loved both and I’m so confused by this widespread accusation. I was obviously uncomfortable witnessing the situations portrayed and the confronting nature of the mental health themes. But it’s an entertainment product bro lol aren’t they simply trying to piss off our wallets?
Todd philips says he left comedy to avoid woke cancel culture to make joker 1 , and is somehow suprised that the incels who are fans of joker woudlnt like a musical and the woke people who like musicals wont have any fun with a half assed attempt at a musical where joaqin phoneix says that the best singer lady gaga did bad singing on purpose , todd philips can just get people to blame wokeness or musicals when its his fault the movie sucks
The fact that Warner Brothers persuaded Todd Phillips to make a sequel to Joker when he wanted to leave it as a stand-alone makes me glad I’m never going to use my Bachelor’s Degree in Film to become a director.
@@JTS1128 No. I’m a 29 year-old young man with Cerebral Palsy. I want to book work for Pepsi commercials and supporting roles in family comedy movies like Kung Fu Panda 4, Ghostbusters 4: Frozen Empire, and Inside Out 2.
You could make your own movies. And they don’t ever have to become blockbusters for you to still enjoy the hobby. Millions do it everyday. Also Todd Phillips could’ve simply said no. Instead of doing this BS
@@Hectorferjr2 PLEASE, you, and EVERYONE, if you haven't already, embrace the One True Only God YHWH Jehovah, Only One Jesus Christ His Only Begotten Son and Lord and Savior of our souls and the Only One Holy Spirit. God is good. God is love. Jesus IS coming. Your soul depends on it! I have seen God act in my life. He saved my soul, changed my heart, changed my mind, helped people through me, took care of people in my life, people I hurt before I found God. God is the only reason I was able to reconcile with my dad before he died. God worked through Jesus Christ to save our souls. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. Believe in your heart and confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and that God raised Him from the dead and you will be saved. Be baptized in The Holy Spirit, and if He wills, water as well. Repent of your sins, accept God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit into your heart, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, that all who believe on Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father Jehovah God but through Him. Not long after I got saved I prayed to God for help understanding the Holy Bible, and that same day someone knocked on my door asking me if I wanted to understand the Bible. The Holy Bible says, "love thy enemy", "turn the other cheek", "If your enemy is hungry, feed him", "if he is thirsty, give him a drink", "pray for those who persecute you", "do not repay evil for evil". LORD willing, all humans may commit sin of almost every kind (gay, straight), and that's wrong, and all humans sin, as God tells us through the The Holy Bible, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." The Holy Bible also says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.", "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." and, “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
@@st_raziel2283 I just checked the scene he killed his motherm the lady he was interested in was left open to interpretation but im guessing he killed her too.
@@jackd6881 The lady he imagined he was with? Or the psyche who interviewed him at the end of the first movie? If it's the lady he imagined a relationship with, she lived.
Because it’s not a Joker film anymore, it’s an Arthur Fleck film and not many comic book fans signed up for that. No matter how good or bad the film is, it mis-sold what is was to the audience.
Ever since the movie industry started, there’d always been a divide between the creatives and the studios. Now, due to the advent of social media, that divide’s grown into a legitimate schism which encompasses the creatives, the studios AND the audience. This is why Joker 2 failed. It is a movie that was made to piss off the audience because of the rift between the creatives and the studio.
Forget those incels; what about the common movie goer who loves the joker lore. If todd wanted to make a point he could have just had a PSA before the movie started and after it ended; a musical isnt moving the needle about killer worship.
Sequels don't ruin anything unless if you allow it. I can watch the first one just fine and leave it there. I don't care if a bad sequel exists. There's bad sequels to good movies all the time. Psycho, Rocky, Terminator, Jaws, Star Wars, etc. It doesn't mean they are retroactively bad.
@@spicymemes7458I disagree, sequels ruin everything unless the story is done properly. Even from the examples you gave in your statement, those movies were atrocious because they completely undo the progress of said previous films. Dark Fate had great action and competent actors and still did bad in the box office. People are not dumb, and if they keep pumping out these types of stories, they will continue to fail miserably among fans and general movies audiences.
@@Lyndonswing So, one bad movie ruins your enjoyment of everything else by association? I'm sorry, but that's how children think about things, borderline miserable. You take the good with the bad. That's life. Movies are generally standalone experiences. Sometimes, a sequel improves on the original, but I don't need to enjoy the entire series to feel validated for liking the second of a trilogy. It helps to have consistent quality throughout, but if it doesn't, so what? You'll always have the ones you enjoyed.
@@ninjanibba4259 Not cope. I just think some of you guys like being miserable. People don't generally think like this. I'm genuinely concerned that some of you need to touch grass.
My biggest gripe with this movie was the whole Joker vs Arthur conflict. Like yes, I get it's supposed to be Arthur's mental battle between whether Joker is just a persona or who he really is, but wasn't it already established in that iconic bloody smile scene that he renounced himself as Arthur and fully accepted himself as Joker? So WHY the hell is he suddenly having second thoughts when he's already far gone? They basically reverse his transformation and have him go back to being poor unlucky Arthur in the end and it felt very anticlimactic. I myself love redemption stories, but Joker is NOT redeemable. And even then his redemption goes absolutely nowhere. Not to mention Harley leaving him because she doesn't like him anymore was such salt in the wound. If I'm understanding correctly, she's supposed to be his soul mate and the ONE good thing left in his life that understands him, and just like that she's just another person who's kicked him to the curb. Yes, that's life, but would it have killed them to leave him ONE person who genuinely loved him? It's like this movie's whole purpose was to continue kicking Arthur around like nothing's changed. To me, the whole point of Arthur's transformation into Joker was that he was fed up with being pushed around and decided to stand up and make those who are awful pay, even if it had to involve chaos. Yet in this movie, his response to someone who constantly pushed him around and _really_ should've gotten what they F@$%IN DESERVED, is to do nothing and decide he doesn't wanna be Joker anymore because all of a sudden he feels bad. Like WTF?! It's not to say I condone violence and chaos like Todd Phillips was probably scared this movie would glamorize, but HELLOOOOO this it the JOKER!! His whole thing is his love for violence and chaos, his lack of empathy and redeemable qualities, and most of all, his high status as a criminal. And that's what I was hoping this movie would dwell into; his rise to crime and possibly fighting Batman. If they at least ended it with him going back to being Joker again it would've at least had a better ending. But NOPE, we get a copout ending with him getting killed and the writers deciding "SURPRISE he was never the real Joker, so you can just forget his whole origin story we fleshed out and established for you and focus on this rando who will be the new Joker. ENJOY!" 🤨 So in conclusion, this movie is a JOKE! And not the right kind.
Here’s the thing about “ subverting expectations.” For that to work, what you’re replacing it with needs to be BETTER than what you’re subverting. Just subverting in an of itself means nothing. Many writers don’t seem to get that. This film was just a boring, mean spirited slog to get through.
They spent $200 million dollars on it vs. 55 million on the first one. If they'd spent $60 million instead they'd be well on their way to making a profit off this. Instead this is a flop they will be lucky to ever break even on. Budgets are out of control. Also, read the room. The days of 10+ billion dollar blockbusters a year are OVER. It's not coming back. Joker joined the billionaire club at the height of super hero fever the same year End Game came out. We've cooled on this stuff since then (franchises in general, not just super hero stuff). This has nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof. That is irrelevant on weekend #1, nobody has seen the thing.
Labeling the original Joker, which was a billion dollar success, as specifically being a movie loved by MAGA's/rioters is giving those people WAY too much power. It's like you're telling Hollywood that those nutjobs are the ones with real money and influence. That's simply not true. I have never seen a rioter or a shooter wear clown make up cause Joker is their father. I believe 90% of the Joker 1 fans understand that Arthur is a bad guy and shouldn't be seen as an idol, but simply that the story really worked for what it was going for. And those people saw a sequel to it that was trash.
When they announced that this will be a musical I already have suspicion that this was an oscar bait move, and they also tried so hard to deconstruct those scenes
I'm kinda shocked they rated it as high as they did. It didn't suck because it gave people "what they didn't expect" it sucked because it gives you nothing. The director clearly hated having to make this so why should I care? I don't ecen think I hated it as much as a lot of people but this was a hard some ol' bullshit.
Oh, and trying to link this to the Nolan movies with the random goon cutting the smile in his face was insulting. He wanted to do it in Joker one while Nolan was still with warner bros and was rightfully shut down. Now that Nolan's gone he was free to throw that trash in.
Yes, Korey. People were upset that the Joker wasnt the Joker. It just wasnt that good of a movie. It had nothing to do with change. The first one was a big departure from the generic Joker story we know.
Todd Philips is unbelievable. First he complains that his movies are all fluff with no substance. Then he makes a half-hearted attempt to make a sequel because Warner Brothers persuaded him to do? This man is going to end up directing episodes of George and Mandy’s First Marriage for CBS by next year if he doesn’t stop whining about this like a baby.
@SCBUFC Right, he's shouting out buzzwords like "The Far Right, Trumpers, etc," when the average person doesn't want to see the Joker get gang raped at the end.
The movie wasn't that good? Anyone? What the movie tried to do it failed at. It failed as a musical, it failed as a character study, it failed at continuing the story /telling a story, it failed at being interesting. Acting was great, direction was great, everything else was forgettable...
They ruined everything they built up in the first movie and retroactively made the first movie also worse. It really did feel like they wanted to destroy the character of the Joker since the director hated that people across the world liked and related to him.
Exactly. People saying it’s because it’s a musical. We all grew up with musicals. That was a weird choice but not a deal breaker. If reviews were amazing, and word of mouth got going it would’ve been a success. But not only was is a bad movie, it was actively trolling the audience.
Explain this to me though; these movie tickets today cost a fortune of money, how is it that people can still get up from their seats and leave a theater regardless the expectations of a movie?
It's pretty easy if you have a subscription like Regal Unlimited and you already watched two movies that month to cover the cost. You can just walk out to the lobby, get a ticket to something else and be right back in a seat.
I think you guys are focused in on the ideas you like and not their execution. I also don't think it's unreasonable to want a movie called Joker to have some semblance of the comic character. Todd should've just made his own serial killer clown movie, take away the DC names and no one would even connect it to Batman.
@@ElmerPonceCastro nope... thats just hardcore copium that every artsy fartsy person says when their weak passion project gets rejected in mass by the audience
Or instead of changing a pre-established character? How about just making one from scratch. We don't need new interpretation on things every 10 to 20 years
The first movie replaced Travis Bickle with The Joker in Taxi Driver and people loved it. Then they took that world and made it a musical that no one asked for.
It’s crazy how Warner brothers has been failing while having accidental hits . They can not capitalize off momentum in film or video games. The previous regime was terrible
Korey keeps using "grounded" as a positive. What is the value of that in a comic book movie? Honestly. You want a Joker who's not the Joker, a Scarecrow that's not Scarecrow, a Mr. Freeze who's not Mr. Freeze, we've got a Batman who can't fly, and a Penguin who has nothing in common with the Penguin, and we haven't had a funny Joker on film since 2008. We're getting ugly CG-fests from Marvel, and the superhero with the most gorgeous aesthetic and vibe is getting reduced to ugly-looking crime thrillers? It's come full circle from validating comic books as a serious platform for storytelling in other mediums to _invalidating_ them. We're getting repackaged prestiege cinema or TV with brand recognition that has less and less in common with the source material, and you want more of it? _Why?_
There was actually a guy in Japan who dressed as the Joker for Halloween, stabbed people, and set a train car on fire. It was even in Shibuya. So there are people out there really taking the imagery to that extent.
This movie felt like it seeked to torture and punish everyone for liking the first one so much and Arthur himself. I cannot get over that. We’re being punished for what?
Todd Phillips said he wanted to destroy the character or whatever but I wonder how the people who paid for the movie to made feel about a director sabotaging their investment
Todd Phillips made it clear when the first Joker came out that he only intended it to be a one-off movie with no sequel. Then it goes on to make 1 billion dollars world wide, and Warner Brothers twist Phillips’ arm into knots to do a sequel, and they wouldn’t take no for an answer either. Seems to me that Phillips caved in but he decided to go into “self-sabotage” mode with Joker 2, and deliberately made it an anti-sequel so bad that only very few Joker fans would like it, if any, and he would never be pressured by Warner Brothers to make a third Joker film. Looks like his plan worked. Unfortunately, this also affects the first Joker film for me. Because now, we know that Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker isn’t who we thought he was, which for me is a tremendous disappointment. As much as I greatly admire the first Joker movie, I can’t see myself watching it ever again. Thanks a lot, Todd. And thanks a lot Warner Brothers for pressuring Todd Phillips into making a Joker sequel that didn’t need to be made.
I get that you have to get the most value out of Lady Gaga as a performer, but not everything that she’s in has to be a musical. She’s genuinely a good actor and I think she and whoever she’s working for should give more credit to her acting ability because this movie really had no business being a musical.
This movie BOMBED because “Todd Phillips” is a fucking 1-Hit Wondering Hack. Ruining ANY potential of this iteration of “Joker”. The trailers were WAY more satisfying.
Part of the problem is Phoenix Joker isn't a mastermind criminal he's a mentally ill grounded Joker. So there wasn't much left to say about him after the first Joker. Joker 2 basically just repeats most of the stuff we already went through with him in the first.
It wasn’t a good movie. It wasn’t a good musical. Lets not give Todd Phillips credit for thinking too deep in the story. First film borrowed heavily from The King Of Comedy with De Niro. That’s why it worked.
Warner Brothers did here EXACTLY what they did with the Wachowskis when they decided it's time for a 4th Matrix movie. One of them backed out altogether,the other "reluctantly" stayed on to write and direct,and Resurrection turned out terrible..The same happened here,except the first wasn't meant to be part of a trilogy. In fact,Todd Phillips had made that clear in several interviews..Executive greed struck again.
i thought the cartoon kinda fit in with the theme of the film.. there's the shadow (joker) and then there's arthur.. the joker alter ego was getting all the attention and love but at the end of the day it's arthur who winds up dead on the floor
He didn't need to become the iconic Joker we all know, but he still needed to become The Joker. He could have sucked and been falling all over the place, but as long as he was proud and unrepentant to be the character, this could have been better. Sorry to say this, but Arthur is nothing without The Joker. Hence, the title (P.S. Not an incel, my problems are with men, not women)
There isn't any real tension in this film, it's just endless misery p0rn. Whereas at least with the first film there was rising tension to Arthur fighting back, and "winning" against an oppressive system. But this film is going to fall hard, especially once the obligatory two weeks is up.
Democrats in general are just peaceful loving people am I right?, lol sure thing, but to the real subject at hand, getting to Joker 2, i do believe like some do that Todd Phillips intentionally destroyed Joker 2 because he hated the fact a lot of people like his Joker character and on top of him hating sequels, each Hangover got worse as the trilogy went on, i'll check Joker 2 out to see what the fuss is all about.
Somewhere in the office of Marvel Films, executives are rolling on the floor laughing their asses off. Inside Warner Brothers Studios, heads will role. And finally Todd Philips will never make a movie for Warner Brothers Studios.
