Joker: Folie à Deux

[Wor-Gar]

these people only view us as a well to run to when they want to fund a lavish purchase or want their name in the press again, washing their hands when it’s convenient.

THIS!

 

[Wor-Gar]

The entire genre of the movie is a risk. If the creators just wanted to make money and satisfy their audience it would have gone a totally different direction but they clearly weren't interested in telling that kind of story. When you set out to make a sequel to joker and decide on it being a musical you know your already working uphill and the audience is going to fold its arms and doubt what you're trying to do. I didnt care for the movie but the spirit of the decision is what I'm saying I appreciate. Especially in todays movie climate where anything close to that almost never happens. I want to see more of these kinds of risky decision in movies. Not all movies need to be like this, but we need some. Most will fail, but the ones that dont will truly leave an impact.

But there's good risk and bad risk.

This movie is bad.

Did you forget that everyone loved the first movie that was a risk? There would be no Joker 2 without Joker 1. So it's not that audiences don't reward risk. A billion dollars is a pretty good reward.

 

[Nick D]

He didn’t take the musical risk
in hopes to reinvent the wheel.

Make no mistake,
he does not want praise for this film,
for this character.

Which is why he killed him off,
he didn’t want a trilogy, he didn’t want a sequel.

He intended to make Arthur a loser from the very beginning and didn’t like that the audience took to his loser.

To him, the greatest comic book villain of all time,
is a loser.

So he needed a sure fire way to kill his design.
People constantly want Carpenter back for one last Halloween film, why?
The entire film would just be a middle finger to you.

 

[batmanfan23]

But there's good risk and bad risk.

This movie is bad.

Did you forget that everyone loved the first movie that was a risk? There would be no Joker 2 without Joker 1. So it's not that audiences don't reward risk. A billion dollars is a pretty good reward.

Of course there is good and bad risk, thats what risk is. Taking risks leads to good and bad movies, typically more bad than good ones. No one said audiences don't reward risk.

 

[batmanfan23]

He didn’t take the musical risk
in hopes to reinvent the wheel.

Make no mistake,
he does not want praise for this film,
for this character.

Which is why he killed him off,
he didn’t want a trilogy, he didn’t want a sequel.

He intended to make Arthur a loser from the very beginning and didn’t like that the audience took to his loser.

To him, the greatest comic book villain of all time,
is a loser.

So he needed a sure fire way to kill his design.
People constantly want Carpenter back for one last Halloween film, why?
The entire film would just be a middle finger to you.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...you are claiming that he purposefully tried to make a bad movie that even he thought sucked to give a middle finger to everyone?

 

[crows]

In the context of what I was talking about- ghostbusters 2 is not a good reference. Ghostbusters 2 set out to be a safe satisfying sequel, similar in tone and general vibe as the first. A supernatural force will threaten to destroy the city and the ghostbusters will save the day. It was the exact opposite of risky. Taking an anti hero movie like joker and having the sequel be a musical that almost purposefully thumbs its nose at the first is a very nonintuitive decision. Wether or not the character growth was a retread of the first one is irrelevant to that. You can say having the same character growth was a bad decision, or making it a musical was a bad decision, or thumbing its nose at the first one and making it almost purposefully unsatisfying was a bad decision- but it is certainly bold and wildly outside the box from what anyone could imagine the sequel being. To say this movie didnt take risks is absolutely insane. The entire genre of the movie is a risk. If the creators just wanted to make money and satisfy their audience it would have gone a totally different direction but they clearly weren't interested in telling that kind of story. When you set out to make a sequel to joker and decide on it being a musical you know your already working uphill and the audience is going to fold its arms and doubt what you're trying to do. I didnt care for the movie but the spirit of the decision is what I'm saying I appreciate. Especially in todays movie climate where anything close to that almost never happens. I want to see more of these kinds of risky decision in movies. Not all movies need to be like this, but we need some. Most will fail, but the ones that dont will truly leave an impact.

sure they took a risk by making it a musical

but there's no character growth. there's no change from the first inside Arthur.

 

[crows]

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...you are claiming that he purposefully tried to make a bad movie that even he thought sucked to give a middle finger to everyone?

of course

also you need to watch megalopolis as soon as you can. you would love it.

 

[batmanfan23]

sure they took a risk by making it a musical

but there's no character growth. there's no change from the first inside Arthur.

Having no character growth has nothing to do with risk or not, which is what I was talking about. You can say its bad to not have certain character growth. But if the bones of folie a deux remained roughly the same- he started off as meek arthur in the jail, became joker again, broke out, and took over the city in a bunch of badass scenes- essentially recreating the character arc of first movie- fans of the original would have relatively been satisfied. So I dont understand what your even talking about. His arc or lack of arc or retread of his arc isnt relevant to if fans would have enjoyed it or if the movie took risks or not. It's just a side piece of commentary.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Of course there is good and bad risk, thats what risk is. Taking risks leads to good and bad movies, typically more bad than good ones. No one said audiences don't reward risk.

I agree.

I think there was a large range of possibilities for a sequel -- everything from moving his character closer to the archetypical Batman adversary OR simply watching him become a Scarface type criminal who took advantage of his new-found infamy to start a cult and to cause anarchy.

Instead, more social commentary about a corrupt system -- no growth on Phoenix's part with his new celebrity, just more mind games.

Playing it safe is usually defined as more of the same -- and this seems like that from a story perspective, just colorized and livened up with musical numbers and introducing another character from the Batman rogues gallery.

So, in a way, there's even less risk taken here than the first one.

 

[batmanfan23]

of course

also you need to watch megalopolis as soon as you can. you would love it.

Why would I like it? I didnt like folie a deux.

 

[batmanfan23]

I agree.

I think there was a large range of possibilities for a sequel -- everything from moving his character closer to the archetypical Batman adversary OR simply watching him become a Scarface type criminal who took advantage of his new-found infamy to start a cult and to cause anarchy.

Instead, more social commentary about a corrupt system -- no growth on Phoenix's part with his new celebrity, just more mind games.

Playing it safe is usually defined as more of the same -- and this seems like that from a story perspective, just colorized and livened up with musical numbers and introducing another character from the Batman rogues gallery.

So, in a way, there's even less risk taken here than the first one.

Use your brain. They made a sequel to the joker as a slow courtoom drama, with musical numbers, it purposefully didnt give the audience the payoffs it wanted, and made him die a failure. There is nothing not risky about any of that. You can hate. Everyone hates it. But to say it wasnt risky is stupidity.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Use your brain. But to say it wasnt risky is stupidity.

I don't like you.

 

[Nick D]

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying...you are claiming that he purposefully tried to make a bad movie that even he thought sucked to give a middle finger to everyone?

I can’t name a single memorable redeeming quality to the 2 hour and 20 minute film the guy released.

He was in love with the first film, before it became a success. He couldn’t stop praising his own work despite the heavy handed influences that inspired it.

That all changed the moment the media started attacking him for the film publicly in the news.

So much so that he quickly publicly denounced morally backing Fleck and anyone that sympathizes with his actions throughout the runtime. Had he had a backbone, and stood straight, there’d be no nominations, no Oscar winner.

His peers didn’t like it or the hive that flocked to it, genuinely terrified of it, so why would they reward it with an Oscar?

Why would they then throw him $200 million to make the sequel? Not to make more money, they knew a sequel wasn’t topping a billion no matter how much they inflated the budget, it was always going to be diminishing returns. What they needed the sequel to do is to burn down this idol-like character that it became.

Had they left it alone, it could’ve become an even bigger cult film, now they’ve tainted it.
The last we’ll ever see of his portrayal is bleeding out in prison.

 

[crows]

Use your brain. They made a sequel to the joker as a slow courtoom drama, with musical numbers, it purposefully didnt give the audience the payoffs it wanted, and made him die a failure. There is nothing not risky about any of that. You can hate. Everyone hates it. But to say it wasnt risky is stupidity.

it's also just not a good movie, with really bad pacing made worse by weak musical aspects, and none of it really amounting to any sort of coherent or impactful vision

the whole thing is dour, miserable, and contributes nothing to the first

Todd Phillips knew that if it was a hit, he'd be handcuffed to superhero stuff for the rest of his career and he wanted to end the Joker franchise
That or he genuinely was just freaked out that the "wrong people" liked Joker and destroyed his own franchise trying to spite them.
it was a jeer at toxic masculinity as a whole

 

[crows]

Why would I like it? I didnt like folie a deux.

you said you want movies that take risks.

megalopolis is the biggest risk on earth. it's literally abstract art. it's like a Picasso painting in movie form.
it really is literally the most abstract movie ever made
watch it before it leaves theaters

 

[batmanfan23]

I can’t name a single memorable redeeming quality to the 2 hour and 20 minute film the guy released.

He was in love with the first film, before it became a success. He couldn’t stop praising his own work despite the heavy handed influences that inspired it.

That all changed the moment the media started attacking him for the film publicly in the news.

So much so that he quickly publicly denounced morally backing Fleck and anyone that sympathizes with his actions throughout the runtime. Had he had a backbone, and stood straight, there’d be no nominations, no Oscar winner.

His peers didn’t like it or the hive that flocked to it, genuinely terrified of it, so why would they reward it with an Oscar?

Why would they then throw him $200 million to make the sequel? Not to make more money, they knew a sequel wasn’t topping a billion no matter how much they inflated the budget, it was always going to be diminishing returns. What they needed the sequel to do is to burn down this idol-like character that it became.

Had they left it alone, it could’ve become an even bigger cult film, now they’ve tainted it.
The last we’ll ever see of his portrayal is bleeding out in prison.

The first movie from the very beginning was always praised for its below the line qualities- cinematography, score, etc, and also Phoenix' acting. The majority of the bad reviews said this as well. The reviewers who gave it bad scores just added on that they thought it was derivative, sympathizing with a toxic point of view, etc.

To say it wouldnt have won oscars because of what Todd Phillips said or did not say is misplaced. He didnt win any oscars- the other artists did. Todd didn't win anything. The people that won, their work had been praised from the start.

Also, if you think studios are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a project to 'burn down an idol' you just really have no grasp of the reality of the business. The people writing the checks for these movies are not investing $200 million to arbitrarily burn down an idol. They are doing it because they think they can make money on their return. That is the only reason. They don't have to think they are going to make a billion or beat the first one to finance the sequel. They are banking on the name recognition alone, a sequel to the biggest R rated (now 2nd biggest) movie of all time, starring Phoenix and todd phillips directing. Having those names attached in the marketing. I can tell you they probably were not thrilled with the direction Todd took the project, not because of their feelings on wether or not 'the idol is burned or not burned to the ground, but because it was not a crowd pleaser for the audience it was targeted at. But Phillips and Phoenix were in a very rare situation where they had leverage over the studio. It almost never happens where a creator gets that kind of power. This is the story todd phillips and phoenix wanted to tell, not the studio. Studios ALWAYS just want more of what worked before. That is all they ever want. Optimally, keep it as close to the original as possible, that worked, do it again.

Now if you want to say that Todd Phillips and phoenix wanted to burn this character down, that I agree with. That doesnt mean they are trying to create a bad movie. There was too much work put into the production and acting of this thing. It wasn't phoned in, it just wasn't good. This is an example of a director trying to accomplish something that just exceeded his grasp. All of the critics who may have given the first one a bad review for hero worshipping a toxic guy, also said this one sucked- when it is purposefully going out of its way to NOT hero worship him. It just wasn't a good movie.

As far as making a piece of art- if todd phillips wanted to make a sequel with a theme saying we should condemn this character- thats his subjective choice. That isn't an objectively good or bad decision from an artistic pov. It just comes down to how that theme is then played out moment by moment. You can say its a bad decision from fan satisfaction perspective for sure. But you can absolutely make an objectively great movie where the goal is to say 'dont look up to to this guy, everything about him his toxic and pathetic'. Again it just probably wont be satisfying to the audience showing up to watch it.

 

[crows]

The first movie from the very beginning was always praised for its below the line qualities- cinematography, score, etc, and also Phoenix' acting. The majority of the bad reviews said this as well. The reviewers who gave it bad scores just added on that they thought it was derivative, sympathizing with a toxic point of view, etc.

To say it wouldnt have won oscars because of what Todd Phillips said or did not say is misplaced. He didnt win any oscars- the other artists did. Todd didn't win anything. The people that won, their work had been praised from the start.

Also, if you think studios are throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a project to 'burn down an idol' you just really have no grasp of the reality of the business. The people writing the checks for these movies are not investing $200 million to arbitrarily burn down an idol. They are doing it because they think they can make money on their return. That is the only reason. They don't have to think they are going to make a billion or beat the first one to finance the sequel. They are banking on the name recognition alone, a sequel to the biggest R rated (now 2nd biggest) movie of all time, starring Phoenix and todd phillips directing. Having those names attached in the marketing. I can tell you they probably were not thrilled with the direction Todd took the project, not because of their feelings on wether or not 'the idol is burned or not burned to the ground, but because it was not a crowd pleaser for the audience it was targeted at. But Phillips and Phoenix were in a very rare situation where they had leverage over the studio. It almost never happens where a creator gets that kind of power. This is the story todd phillips and phoenix wanted to tell, not the studio. Studios ALWAYS just want more of what worked before. That is all they ever want. Optimally, keep it as close to the original as possible, that worked, do it again.

Now if you want to say that Todd Phillips and phoenix wanted to burn this character down, that I agree with. That doesnt mean they are trying to create a bad movie. There was too much work put into the production and acting of this thing. It wasn't phoned in, it just wasn't good. This is an example of a director trying to accomplish something that just exceeded his grasp. All of the critics who may have given the first one a bad review for hero worshipping a toxic guy, also said this one sucked- when it is purposefully going out of its way to NOT hero worship him. It just wasn't a good movie.

As far as making a piece of art- if todd phillips wanted to make a sequel with a theme saying we should condemn this character- thats his subjective choice. That isn't an objectively good or bad decision from an artistic pov. It just comes down to how that theme is then played out moment by moment. You can say its a bad decision from fan satisfaction perspective for sure. But you can absolutely make an objectively great movie where the goal is to say 'dont look up to to this guy, everything about him his toxic and pathetic'. Again it just probably wont be satisfying to the audience showing up to watch it.

but they didn't make an entertaining movie either

this movie was the same as matrix 4
matrix 4....from the same studio.
matrix 4 was literally a 200 million dollar middle finger to the audience. it happens.

joker 2 is definitely a finger to anyone that loves the first one

 

[Nick D]

They care about financial returns until a film
gathers a cult-like following of people they despise.

They made their billion off of a film which they hate that you like, while actively trying to tear it down before it even reached theaters.

I’m not talking about critic reviews, those hold no weight. I’m talking about the news media channels and stations who went on and on about the destruction and mayhem this would bring, about the theater mass shootings that were inevitably to take place.

Hollywood and juggernaut corporations own all of the news outlets, they control the narrative, so it’s no coincidence that they all said the same thing about the film and what it’d do.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Who will Todd Phillips rape next?

 

[xXJ0kerXx1]

i didnt think it was a bad watch like people make it out to be

the movie directly points fingers at those that idolize joker in the first movie and all the negative connotations that come with lifting this character up onto a pedestal while neglecting to think of the person underneath all the make up.

while simple, I think its effective but the movie itself is quite underbaked when plots arent being tied together near the end of the movie. after the trial, they kinda lose me but maybe I'm biased. i think it was a fine watch. not as good as the first but very enjoyable and entertaining. can be viewed as a separate entity or an add-on to the original movie