Joker 2: Deliberately Bad?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- That's life! Is Joker: Folie à Deux a deliberately bad film? Did Todd Phillips ruin his best work, Joker, to repair his relationship with Hollywood and collect a massive paycheck? Signs point to "Yes."
We can say it succesfully subverted expectations.
Yes, it accomplished the subversion goal in a way that Rian Johnson would approve. 🤦🏼♂️
If Arthur isn't the joker and this isn't a DC movie why are the Wayne's in the narrative at all?
Exactly! Phillips denied associations with DC heroes and villains, then relied on associations with DC heroes and villains to attract viewers.
It's odd that Arthur's discovery that Thomas Wayne was his father is never mentioned in the second film. You'd think that would be brought up during the trial.
@@DocBruceBanner True. If nothing else, as evidence of mental illness in Arthur’s family.
Part 2 is a film about hating viewership. It's a sucker punch of a film.
It's not really an unskilled production it's just one with no target audience. Seems the whole ethos of the film is tricking people into seeing it then poking them in the eye and calling them an idiot for seeing it.
Thanks but no thanks. Sorry not sorry not gonna waste my time and money
I like your sucker punch imagery, but Phillips, WB, et al. telegraphed their swing. “We wanted to ruin the first film,” they told us in interviews and trailers. The execution was far worse than imagined though. Their subversion surprised me despite my low expectations, so your point is well-taken.
Thank you for your comment.
The thought had crossed my mind that they nuked the burgeoning franchise so as not to encourage anarchy during the current and sure to be worsening state of the economy
Possible. 🤔 The existing order might not be entirely stable. Joker prompted uncomfortable questions.
No, they nuked it because the director stated clearly that he didn't want to make a sequel. He likely intentionally sabotaged it.
This negative hype is completely exaggerated. Joker 1 was already an alternative. I admit, I saw the movie yesterday and was of course prepared for a musical, etc. It wasn't the best movie ever but nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be. It's not like Lady Gaga sings every 5 minutes. What actually bothered me the most about the musical scenes was that they were always made to be "happy", never really dark or depressing. Perhaps this was intentional as a counter to the dark storyline. But not a single one of these songs touched me in any way, which I find strange. It was somehow too contrived, why wasn't there a ballad here?
Are you suggesting negative hype is responsible for the film’s failure in theaters? It will lose over $100 million according to conservative estimates. I don’t believe any level of “exaggerated” could produce that result.
@@galacticinitiative7979 To say the movie is soo soo bad IS exaggeeated. I dont care about any $. And I never said the movie is great. So what do you want from me? I have my opinion and thats it
The Daniel Johnston song that played over the end credits brought me to tears and emphasised what this movie is really about.
It gotta be some kind of satire
The film tried to “clown” its viewers so… a satire of sorts. 😂
I immediately saw some scenes that I would have liked to have realized differently. I'm also getting tired of the prison guard type. But on the whole, the movie was absolutely ok.
This movie will be much more appreciated in the future
Yes. Thank you. Looks like media literacy isn’t entirely dead yet
I disagree. The film, like its main character, will prove to be a cautionary tale. Sorry. We will not describe it as “misunderstood in its time” years from today.
Fans wanted Endgame and they got Ghost World; and that is a good thing for comic book movies, unless you lack self awareness.
Please explain “good thing for comic book movies” in the context of Joker 2.
@@galacticinitiative7979 Joker 2 goes beyond the banal message of "might makes right" inherent in most superhero movies.
@@julianlawrence1648 Yes, Joker 2 went beyond most superhero movies. Unfortunately, it went beyond ticket buyers too.
I tried to watch it for free. I want my money and my 30 min. back.
Haha. You deserve recompense for your time. I watched it twice for my analysis so… 😳.
@@galacticinitiative7979 wow! not sure how you made it through that, we appreciate it though.
I saw it for free and found the movie absolutely acceptable. I'm from Germany so I know what really bad movies look like - you're all spoiled
What is more likely? They created a film to fail to secretly blunt the societal impact of a previous film that while good, had really no actual societal impact.
Or the studio wanted to hop on the gravy train with a sequel and didnt give it enough time to cook?
I think the director just got too much wind in his pipes.
yeah this is the kind of video id expect to see on EFAP. Like what is he on about haha!!
Forgive me for answering a question with a question.
Which of the following seems more likely?
A. WB financed an utter deconstruction and repudiation of the first film and anticipated profits.
B. WB engineered the sequel’s failure to demonstrate their complicity, and Phillips willingly participated.
C. In an age of micromanagement by corporate studios, WB threw $200 million at Phillips without strings attached.
Did you watch the video? It's not about social impact, it is about the perception to others of what you are all about what if you are on 'the right side of history'.
There were women in Iran protesting for their rights to be educated and learn how to read putting on the Joker makeup at protests after the first movie came out.
“No real societal impact”
IT IS A GOOD MOVIE. GOOD ACTING. WELL DONE. THE NEGATIVE STUFF IS UNTRUE. SEE FOR YOURSELF. A LITTLE MUSIC WILL NOT HURT YOU.
All analytics disagree with your assessment. You may enjoy it, but, by objective standards, it is NOT a good movie. Headline from Variety on Oct 14: “Joker: Folie à Deux to Lose $150 Million to $200 Million in Theatrical Run After Bombing at Box Office”