- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
- comicbooks@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
- comicbooks@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
$100 says this movie bombs now and becomes a cult classic years from now.
I’ve been saying the same thing
Seems like prime cult classic material to me.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I liked it.
No test screenings. Oopsie.
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?
Can you blame them? Who are the biggest vocal Joker fans?
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 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.
That article led me to this one, and now I think I want to see it for myself. Heavy spoiler warning: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/joker-2-ending-angered-fans-1236025470/
I think they’ll make their money back, but I don’t think part trois will be forthcoming.
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.
