This is what happens when you make a sequel solely because the original movie made a profit. If you don't have any type of plan or story to tell, it shows.
Funny thing is, if they put in a minimal amount of effort the could have crapped out a mediocre sequel that didn't wow anyone, but also didn't OFFEND the fans. But they instead put an alarming amount of effort and budget into the art of insulting the fans. Will the execs learn? When "any press" stops being "good press" perhaps. But I'm not that optimistic
Oh wow, that’s an excellent point!! I think that’s the underlying issue here. They aren’t considering part 2 and 3 when making the first. They all should have at least a rough idea of what part 2 will be before they start filing part 1. You can still luck out - Dark Knight felt nothing like Batman Begins but you can tell the 3rd movie was already planned or thought out with part 2. And most of the MCU movies felt like they thought out the sequels or they changed it up if the first was just okay (Thor).
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson It's funny you can "tell the 3rd movie was already planned or thought out with part 2" - cause Christopher Nolan sure couldn't. And didn't. He literally had no idea what to make the movie about - thematically, plot-wise, what's the guiding idea... So his brother suggested A Tale Of Two Cities and he went "Hey, that could work!"... and then he realized he had never actually read the book. It is to his credit that he has managed to make the movie he had no idea how to make work cohesively with previous movies while providing a closure to the trilogy despite poorly sourced original material - a book about French Revolution (and family drama) and a TRULY TERRIBLE comic book "event" that is Batman: No Man's Land.
@@d3nza482 What makes No Man's Land "TRULY TERRIBLE"? While it certainly went on too long and suffered from having too many writers, some of it, like the parts written by Bob Gale, Greg Rucka and Devin Grayson, was truly great.
@@d3nza482 Nolan is a far better filmmaker than everyone else DC has been hiring. He writes and directs all of his projects and has zero misses in his entire catalog.
I've read some (likely humorous) comments that say the giant budget of joker 2 is from todd phillips negotiating absurd amounts so that the movie didn't have to be made, only for the studio to actually gave him the money
@@d3nza482 I mean, it's been done many times before, and it'll be done many times again. Not saying that that's what happened here, but a director sabotaging their own films in order to get out of a contract with a studio or something of the like is far from an outlandish concept.
It's all about "Knowing when to stop" if you ask me. The first joker movie while not my favorite was a solid "self contained" movie. Just cause it made 1 billion dollars DOESN'T MEAN MAKE A SEQUEL. Yes I'm aware how studios work, but part of a good business model is also knowing your limits. Studios should learn that.
I also wasn't very fond of it, but it had real character development. The sequel isn't for the fans, it's from and for the corporate machinery that Hollywood has become...
Could not agree more. In general the entertainment industry doesn't know when to stop. Even books, everything is a series now. Rare to find fantasy or sci-fi books that are self contained. Movies are just on another level, they will milk it till the audience is tired and the IP is toxic.
The thing that gives me the most hope for James Gunn’s DCU is his statements on storytelling. They will not go into production on anything until they have a finished script that they’re all satisfied with. I think as long as they stick with that model, DC can come back better than ever.
I think with dc focusing on one movie rather than a franchise is what will make the movies work and be able to work with a actual dc universe. I'm hyped to also see creators being to actually with what they want to and not just thrown to a project.
I literally made a comment suggesting this plan! Didn’t know Gunn had said that but I said I’m glass half full and hope this leads to far fewer MCU and DC movies but the movies they make they can spend a lot more time and resources on it. I got tired of super hero movies even before Infinity Wars. Now I only forward to Spiderverse animated movies and Deadpool. Nothing else.
I watched it recently. Your right. A disappointing film that made my jaw drop with how hard it was to watch while having one of the most beautiful women on screen. A paradox I still cannot explain, yet exists.
I’m feel like the only person who genuinely liked Wonder Woman 1984 more than the original. I know that I’m absolutely in the minority on that so I’ve always been curious to see why it’s so universally hated.
If you count Peacemaker as a sequel to the Squad reboot, then that might be the best continuation that was greenlit. The Penguin show is a simillar story that acts as a continuation to The Batman.
The main issue with Joker 2 lies in Todd Phillips' lack of understanding of what makes a musical truly compelling. While many people criticize the decision to include musical elements, the real problem is that the set pieces themselves are underwhelming. The lyrics are forgettable, there's little choreography to speak of, and the camera work doesn't add any dynamism to these scenes. Imagine if the same story were paired with breathtaking musical numbers that fully embraced the chaotic nature of the Joker character-it would have elevated the film. The movie has plenty of intriguing ideas, but the execution falls short. The Joker movement subplot, for instance, needed more weight. We should have seen Arthur increasingly overshadowed by the Joker persona, creating a stronger narrative arc. While I appreciate the concept, the film ultimately feels like it needed another pass at the script to realize its full potential.
@BlackPuma124 that was one of my main issues. When I first heard it was going to be a musical I thought it had the potential to do something really interesting. A Joker musical with its own unique music could have been really fun, but juke box musicals have always felt kind of lazy and uninspired to me. Then the ending and so many other dumb ideas it just kinda felt designed for failure
That's Entertainment has "forgettable lyrics?" Come on. There are a lot of problems with Joker 2, but the songs aren't a part of it. The Sgt Pepper's movie wasn't a flop because the Beatles wrote bad songs.
It was a little shocking that The Batman Part II was delayed to 2026, but it does give Matt Reeves plenty of time to write the screenplay for the movie, which is a good sign that the movie will break the DC Sequel Curse.
It does feel like The Batman Part II might be at least good, Matt Reeves has proven that he can make a great sequel, look no further than the Planet of the Apes sequels. By stark contrast, Todd Phillips has proven that he CAN'T pull it off, look no further than the Hangover sequels. The latter of which has proven to be a giant red flag in hindsight and sure enough, Joker 2 ended up being DOA.
It still blows my mind that Marvel has risen and fallen in the time that DC has tried, failed, and tried again to even get their cinematic universe going. Cinematic universes came into and then went out of style before Warner could even get out of second gear.
Joker 2 does something no other Superhero movie does that often It loses the purpose of the first movie. In the first movie Arthur was mentally ill man with horrible living conditions and as the story progresses and the situations becomes worse and worse, he finally snaps and embraces his nature and finally has a genuine smile in the end, symbolizing the fact that he was happy as the Joker, he was finally seen and beloved by people, recognized for his actions as an Icon. In the Second movie he apparently is not the Joker, gets shanked by a Heath Ledger look a like and Harley is the manipulator
Probably by design. I argue that Todd Philips made this movie as a "fuck-you" to the Joker chuds. Y'know, 40 year-olds on Facebook who share shitty motivational-posters about how they're bad and dangerous. Let's be honest, 2019 Joker didn't destigmatize mental-illness. If anything, it might have made things worse.
One big thing i think most all of DCs failed sequels have in common is a failure to follow through on their main character. Both Aquaman and Shazam have their main character act way more jokey and less seriously then they even were in the first, and Joker has a whole different relationship with his identity. Even Diana feels quite off in conparison in her sequel imo. It makes the the characters story between the films all the more disconnected and hard to get invested in
Aquaman 2 and Shazam 2 are two sides of the same coin in the sense the lead actors lowered the seriousness of their portrayals from the first film, but in different ways. In Aquaman 2, Arthur felt like he wasn’t taking anything seriously because Jason Mamoa didn’t even feel like he was trying, like at all. So many scenes had Arthur wearing normal clothes that you frequently see Jason Mamoa wearing like in casual interviews and whatnot, which kinda made it seem like Mamoa just showed up to set, read some lines in a half-asses manner, and then called it a day. On the other side of the coin, in Shazam 2, Zachary Levi felt like he was trying *too* hard. Like he took his silly, but still somewhat grounded, portrayal from Shazam 1 and decided to dial the goofiness up to 11 to the point that it went from silly to just stupid. He essentially Flandarized the character.
Another issue is that the sequels had underwhelming villians compared to the first. The daughters of atlas are very boring and uninteresting compared to sivana who always felt neglected by his father and brother and liked the power he gained from the seven deadly sins and manta is so one note that making him the main villian in the sequel make him not compelling especially with him being influenced/possesed by the trident.
@@mutalemwananshiku4098Weirdly enough, I would actually say I found Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal’s character) in WW84 to be one of the few decent parts of the movie and even more compelling than Ares in the first movie.
@@mutalemwananshiku4098 Black Manta was the one and only redeeming factor of Aquaman 2 and I absolutely adored him we don't accept Manta slander here. The trident possession thing was really dumb though
@@GLC48 i thought ares was compelling , the issue was the cgi battle at the end. The idea of Maxwell Lord is compelling its just the choices he made dont make sense.
I find it hard to get excited about Gunn taking over. He's already setting up an entire "phase". People don't want phases. Stop trying to chase the MCU model. It's failed for everyone, hell at this point it's failing even for the MCU. If he tried to make a good one-off movie, and then build from that, I'd give it a chance. But I'm not watching another DC "phase".
They want it to be like comics. Storylines that bleed into each other, forcing you to buy issues of comics you don't care about just to get more context on the overall story. It's all Event Fodder. Designed to maximize profit, at the cost of all artistic value. How Dark Nights: Metal. 20 separate titles you have to buy for the full story. Look at Secret War 2. 32 different titles, required for the full story. I don't want to remember Dazzler exists, much less have to pay $3 just to find out why the Beyonder is even back. It's by design, and it won't get better as long as it's profitable.
@@kazumahazeuzumaki the thing is that the comics themselves (speaking of Marvel and DC) are not exactly doing well commercially, so it is questionable whether that model is ideal, especially in the movie industry with its stellar production costs. It work for the MCU for a few years because it was something new, but eventually even that had collapsed under its own weight.
I sometimes got the impression that WB thought that the names of these characters was enough to get people in seats when it’s obviously not. No matter who the character is and how popular they are people aren’t gonna spend money to see a bad film.
Shazam 2 was the least offensive of the bunch imo. There were some actually solid emotional moments, funny jokes, and cool action scenes. But my main issue with it is that the ratio between kid Billy and adult Billy was way off. Kid Billy (played by Asher Angel) got like 3 scenes in the entire movie. Meanwhile, the rest went to Zachary Levi who, while can be funny with the right balance, came off as more and more annoying the longer he stayed on the screen. Not only that, but his portrayal in Shazam 2 even felt like a Flandarized version of his portrayal in the first movie. I also didn’t like the blatant Gatorade and Skittles product placement. And it felt weird that they didn’t continue with the Mister Mind story that they initially teased, and instead went for OC villains instead. Again, I still enjoyed it, but as someone who loved the first movie, I wish my boy Asher could’ve gotten more screen time.
Was there any coordination at all between Zachary Levi and Asher Angel? Always felt like Levi was acting according to his idea of a child, rather than connecting it to this portrayal of Billy
Of all the sequels mentioned, Shazam 2 was the only one I finished. It was okay - had some good movements. I started but never finished Wonder Woman and aquaman sequels…and I have no desire to see joker 2.
I honestly hated Shazam 2. It basically showcases everything wrong with DC films nowadays. From its lame, boring story, cliche and forgettable villains, and uninteresting comedy and one liners. Also that romance between Freddy and Anne was unnecessary.
Dwayne Johnson was one of the reasons why Shazam 2 wasn't as good. Obviously, Black Adam was going to be the villain of that movie (possibly summoned by Dr. Sivana and Mr. Mind) but Dwayne wanted Black Adam to fight Superman instead of Shazam and the Shazamily because he thought they were too silly for him or something. He even prevented the Justice Society to recruit Shazam in the post credits scene and Harcourt and the bearded guy (forgot his name) took their place.
The first movie had a budget of 65 million and that is perfect for a movie like that where you can't really predict how well it will do. The sequel is just the bloated mess you get when studios have a surprise success on their hand, but they don't know why it worked in the first place.
There HAS to be a kickback scheme going on. The mystery marketing costs, the inflated budget, that all goes to SOMEONE. Who it goes to and how much and what is expected in return is decided on by SOMEONE. I'm not crazy to think there is a lot of funneling corporate money to vendors who funnel that money right back to the executives that hired them in the first place.
It's themselves. Just different departments. It's why they never make a profit and are loses on taxes but internally they've paid all these different departments.
I have been saying this for a while. There are a few extra wrinkles I would probably add but the general premise is that they're essentially using these huge projects to reallocate funds with zero intention of a successful project in terms of consumer purchase
The Joker movie didn't need a sequel because it set up a dead-end. The character was a loser who caught a wave and got swept into infamy. He wasn't any kind of mastermind or leader, and ending with his moment of glory was all the movie could do. The DC Universe "Joker" is a whole different ball of wax, and and has places to go, Arthur doesn't, and trying to move on from where his story ended doesn't work.
That is very true. Because while the Snyderverse movies were controversial, even when they made good movies like Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam and Joker, they still made Wonder Woman 1984, Aquaman 2, Shazam 2 and Joker 2.
It's hard to believe this is the same company that made the dark knight not just one of the best movies of all time but one of the best sequels as well hopefully batman part 2 finish this problem
Batman Vs Superman was where the sequel rot set in. Amazing the series limped on till 2024. But now we have Wonder Woman 84, Aquaman 2,Black Adam, Flash, Blue Beetle and Joker 2 all failing in a row. Gunn is going to have his work cut out getting customers back for the reboot so soon. They'd be better off leaving DC alone for 5 years so people can somewhat forget the trash of the last 8 years. Going straight into a reboot next year is going to leave many casual movie goers thinking it's all part of the DC of the last 8 years.
Finally I see someone that mentions BvS. That's where the true sequel problem begun Instead of making a Man of Steel 2, they wasted trying to build an entire universe on one film
Most directors should know when to leave a franchise Some of them give everything they have to make a movie work And most of the times they can't outdo themselves
Fun fact: I saw a test screening of Wonder Woman 1984 in the fall of 2019. All of my comments about the movie were the same criticisms people made when the movie was released a year later. I don't think much changed from the test screenings to the final release, other than cleaning up the special effects
I think the casting has been the only thing the DCU movies did consistently well. Yeah some weren't perfect choices, but I don't think any of them were bad.
Well, in the case of Joker 2, that was a sequel the director never wanted to make and made his intentions more clear that people missed with the first one, which is: Todd Philips hates superhero movies.
@@artychartybyjackmerlinbruc7134 He admitted that part of the point of Joker was to be an anti-superhero piece. He was frustrated that those were the only movies people were going to and making money.
I can't tell if Joker 2 is meant to be a middle finger to the studio (based) or the fanbase (cringe). I think it's really funny to receive a 200 million check from a corporation that has complete faith in you only to make intentional garbage, but not if its at the expense of the fans.
Oh, I like the book recommendation at the end. My wife and I were able to check out the first one from our library. Looking forward to reading it this week!
I know it's not connected to the topic of the video, but it was really nice to see a sponsor not about a scummy product or service, but something that might actually interest the channel's audience.
When I went to see Joker 2, I actually went back to find a member of staff because I thought there was an error on my ticket and it said the wrong screen. "Why" do I hear you ask. Well it's a major blockbuster with widespread recognition and this was the first Saturday since its release. I was expecting a full and busy cinema. I even went through the unusual process of buying my tickets online because I didn't think I'd be able to get a seat. So naturally I couldn't believe my eyes when the trailers were about to start and it was empty. I was literally the only person there. I thought I had to have the wrong screen. Nope, it really was just empty. A little later some people did come in, but by the time the movie actually started there were maybe four people there.
I don't get on stage to play your favorite songs and take your money, I'm up there to share a passion. You might not feel it but good, bad, I'm the guy with the guitar.
Not going to speak for CM, but I can see how someone would say that in the sense that, even if he left because of a family tragedy, the /vision/ itself was changed without Snyder’s consent and the studio doing reshoots and revisions to match Whedon’s vibe. So, in a way, studio executives “ripped” JL from Snyder for something they thought would get them more money.
How bout we let the Joker rest a bit? The character's been over-saturated to shit! I couldn't f* ckn believe when they teased yet ANOTHER Joker in the last Batman film 😱
@@darrylbrumfield7659 I think you mean "after Batman, which came out in 1989,". Calling it Batman 89 is just repetitive. And you didn't see another Joker because all of the films from 1989-1997 were supposed to be the same continuity. How could the Joker come back if he was dead at the end of Batman (or Batman 89 if you would rather, which was released in 1989)
@@darrylbrumfield7659 bro, my point is that he wasn't seen for 20 years is because he was dead in that continuity and superheroes weren't as mainstream. Now with a lot more Batman iterations each one needs their own Joker
How could a movie made of plain musical numbers and courtroom scene have costed 200M USD? Where did that budget go? Anyway, I think that the main problem with all these sequels essentially come down to the fact that they did not have particularly interesting stories to tell. Either they were tacked to what it was a clearly standalone movie that happened to be very successful (Joker 2) or they were put out with the intention to maintain certain IPs in the spotlight to keep alive a shared universe in which less and less people were interested in.
It's possible it could be at least good and that's because of Matt Reeves, the guy made two Planet of the Apes sequels and look how they turned out. It seems like he knows how to pull it off, unlike Todd Phillips (*cough* Hangover sequels *cough*).
Small point: I think it's misleading to say that Justice League was "ripped out of Snyders hands" as he chose to step away from that film to deal with a family tragedy. Whedon 100% did massive reshoots, changed the tone entirely, and apparently acted like a weiner on set to boot; but let's not give more air to the false narrative that came from the dubious "Release the Snyder Cut" campaign about the studio trying to undercut their anti-woke hero genius.
Is Snyder really supposed to be considered “anti-woke”? I’m not really big on his movies but considering his Justice League cast consists of a black man, a Polynesian man, an Israeli woman, and a non-binary person, he seems like someone who the “anti-woke” crowd should consider to be “woke”.
Don't forget Whedon was asked to do the reshoots. People act like he gave DC a call to fire Snyder so he could reshoot Justice League. No, DC producers saw the abysmal reception of both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad and wanted to play it safe by hiring the guy that made The Avengers, so he could make Justice League less Snydery. People love to only blame Whedon and he may be an asshole, but he just followed orders to create a different Justice League.
@@GLC48 trying to make sense of the Snyder Bro movement is not for the casual observer, but if you've never experienced the toxicity of men who were drawn to the hyper-masculine power fantasy that is the movie 300, consider yourself lucky.
Good Video! I always felt Joker never needed a sequel but would have rather seen similar movies that were character studies on other batman villains like two face or scarecrow.
the first aquaman was the most fun i've had watching any superhero movie. friend of the family was going through his first divorce and kept whispering "better hope that love is forever, aquaman" while eating sunflower seeds. the crackling had me cackling and the pitbull track was nice
1:55 The dark knight came out *16 years* ago. If you mainly get fed IP shit, sequels, prequels, remakes and spin-offs for 16 years, people might get a little bit tired of it.
You know what? Aquaman 2 was fun, and I'm genuinely glad it was the note the DCEU went out on instead of The Flash. I'll stan Aquaman 2 as long as there are haters, because it was so much more fun and earnest than a lot of superhero movies lately
Joker 2 is even more out of touch with what fans of the franchise wanted than Jurassic World Dominion with it's focus on cloned little girls and locusts.
As someone who once developed a script for Warner Bros and also looking at their movie trends for the past decade, there seems to be a consistent problem that's intertwined with each other from the studio. No matter who's in charge of it currently, that's like baked into their culture. One is that they will always seem to sacrifice short-term gains for a long-term goals, even more so than current Disney. Tying into that is that Warner Brothers has this problem of equating star power with success. No that sounds weird but put in perspective you have these fantastic Beast movies. The sequel to Harry Potter which is basically what Warner brother wants. They want an entire stable of Harry Potter like properties that they can just milk forever and you have Lana wachowski with the Matrix Resurrection. You have all of the DCE you films with their respective directors and actors such as the rock with black Adam and you have this current joker film. Warner Bros. Seems to not understand. Is that just because these people made something successful years ago does not mean they're going to guarantee you to make something successful now. They're thinking for example with this joker film and this is all they cared about on paper. They didn't look at the script or anything just like with Lana's stuff is they thought they could sell it on the name alone and they had the joker name. They had the original director and they had the actor who played that character who got an Oscar and then they dumped a ton of money on it but they didn't look at. Do we need a sequel? Does the director writer want to do one? Do they have an idea for one? Is it good? How can we minimize the budget effectively to maximize the amount of gross profit ECT. What a proper studio would do. Head all they saw was joker. Same creative team equals profit and it blew up in their face. Basically, I think that if it wasn't for dune, Warner Brothers would be in the same state that lionsgate is in right now.
Hey, long time subscriber, first time commenter. Appreciate that you put a lot of thought into your videos, but I can't help but feel like this one comes through as a little bit...thin? Like, I get it, DC has had a lot of bad sequels (I will not defend them) but I'm not entirely sure this video serves a purpose. I would have loved to see a little more info about the switches in leadership at the top, why DC is so sporadic or I guess just more background on all these movies and trying to connect the dots instead of how you laid it out. Plus the two minute ad at the end (I get it, gotta pay the bills). Hopefully that comes off as constructive criticism!
I love the 40s aesthetic. I appreciate your opinions. I appreciate your candor man. Your voice is great like I keep coming back to listen to these videos, bro just keep it the same and I’ll be here. Cheers man good content.
All of these sequels that you just mentioned in the video, needs to take a page out of Deadpool 2, (one of the greatest sequels ever made) by delving into their central characters, upping the seriousness and depth of their arcs and the themes of the story that the movie tries to convey.
Granted I haven't seen the new Joker film, but from everything I've seen of the film, I can't imagine how they spent 200 million on it? Did they just pay Lady Gaga and Phoenix 150 million of it?
The Bale Batman films had good stories and kept adding new elements. Most of the other film series sequels feel off the mark. Superman 2 (1980) is the best superhero sequel of all time for it's humor and action. It really delivered and was memorable. Most new movies are just not very memorable. They feel like they are made by a committee checking boxes and there is no unique vision.
The problem with Wonder Woman 1984 is the director actually directed the movie entirely whereas she more or less had her hand held by the studio and Zack Snyder for the first movie. And she was woefully unprepared for it and it shows.
Yeah. WW1 was great but you could tell they "saved it in the edit" which means poor direction. But instead of fixing that (like Empire Strikes Back did) they gave undue credit for the success to Jenkins and we got WW1984 instead of a Spider-Man 2.
8:45 Speaking of Jokers 2 and DC Studios...there's something unhinged in the fact that Todd Philipps's Joker timeline is one of the three Batman feature film timelines that existed in less than 10 years.
I don't know, man. I am in (way too) deep with comics, and I loved the first film. I had ZERO interest in the sequel. The first was a standalone flash in the pan, and I could not imagine where this could go. As soon as it was announced, I asked, why??? You're right to bring up WW1984, that was an all-time bad film, but also, there are a million and one places that WW84, COULD have gone. Joker painted itself into a corner with the narrative being tied directly to Arthur's unravelling and offering social commentary all the way through.
Here's a question that I just don't understand. Do sequels, in general, make more than the original? I feel like we often see as a prize Hit movie, and then they throw money at the sequel, and it just doesn't deliver. The first movie was in part so successful because the budget was low, so when they throw all this money at the sequel, they are almost asking for failure. Does it make sense that sequels get a bigger budget than the original? Do sequels perform better than the original? I get the idea of if, it worked once, it should work again. But we should be able to look at the history of sequels and see if that's true
Usually yes, a sequel will bring in more. Of course not always the case, but in most cases it is. You can for example, look at Marvel, almost all their sequels earn more than the originals.
I’m looking at this as glass half full…I’ve tired of the super hero movies and hopefully this will reduce the number of DC and Marvel movies that come out and maybe they spend more time working a project rather than spreading it out over so many movies The animated Into the Spiderverse movies are the only ones I love now and then Deadpool second. They have their own thing going on.
DC has a problem in general and that problem is Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers and Disney are just allergic to money these days. That's why they make terrible decisions.
As soon as I saw Lady Gaga being cast and heard it was a musical I called this movie sucking and so many people told me I was gonna be wrong or that I was crazy and giving them a fat "I told you so" is so satisfying.
@@iNostraDSoft-reboots, inherently, are sequels. They may share many elements with an actual reboot but the story, lore and continuity from previous works are retained.
Personally, I think Aquaman 2 was way better than Wonder Woman ‘84 and Shazam 2 combined. Also, people may celebrate Joker 2’s downfall, but lets be real here, WB won’t be making more of these Elseworlds-style movies ever again (least not in the near-future, and I think that’ll be a missed opportunity in the long run)
To pretend like “the sequel problem” applies to DC alone is wild. That’s not what this video is doing. It’s only a matter of time before a studio puts out “The Godfather Part 4” where the Corleone family is torn apart because Michael’s grandson can’t reconcile whether or not to finally take the family out of crime and into a respectable business enterprise or align with elves to possess the one true ring of power
There's a theory that a director of the second film [Joker] did it on purpose. He doesn't want to make a sequel, he doesn't want have his art to be another fast food franchise. So, when he heard Warner Bro planning to hire another director to make a sequel that's where he steps in make them look so bad it bombed.
the superhero genre itself has outlived itself. Like the Zombie genre on TV. At some point, every phantasy about a world populated by zombies has been played through, and The Walking Dead had nothing else to say. Same with Superhero films. Unless there is a new take on things (think about "The Boyz"s idea of "What would happen if heroes were the villains?), that genre has been played through, as well. People need new stories. Even on the stock market. After the Amazon platform economy, AI is the new hot sh*t people like to gamble on. If that bet doesn't lead to industry-chaning results soon, these stocks will go down south - just like DC and marvel do.
WW84 was the worst by a long shot. I can’t think of a single redeeming aspect of it, while the Joker 2 is a super misfire. WW84 basically didn’t make sense and the editing was so bad that characters seemed to almost teleport. IMO the first Joker became popular because it was The Joker even though it was different. Heath Ledger did such a good that people have been waiting for a Joker they could connect with. It got fans excited to see what was next since, Heath tragically died. Sadly the people responsible for creating these movies was not connected to the fan base. The first was a take on the Joker the fans connected with but it seems like the director got lucky. So they got put in a pedestal and then they fell quickly after. IMO this shows how little these directors understand who they are making these movies for, similar to the Star Wars sequels. These studios are losing billions because they don’t understand their audience. My theory is that it’s out of touch investors. There is a lot of bullshit in Hollywood and I bet that hurts the development. I would imagine that’s why so many movies are the same, investors see certain themes as safe.
I don't even get excited for Marvel's or DC's movies anymore. My approach is to have low expectations, so if the movie is ggod it'll be a good surprise. But that good surprise hardly ever comes these days.
Same. I haven't watched a single MCU movie since Multiverse of Trashness. After watching that god awful movie I gave up on the MCU. And DC has always been messy. And the Boys and Invincible is alright, but honestly I think I just want completely new superhero universes. I just want writers to create movies like Hancock and Chronicle. Superhero films that have no comics but are purely original and have zero connection to Marvel or DC.
While I can’t speak for the other DC Movie sequels the problem with Joker for me at least is no matter which way my thoughts turned on it whether positive or negative it all came circling back around to one question: Why does this movie exist And yes I know money but it’sjusr fascinating in how there’s so little reason for this movie to exist almost like in an endless loop
sequels, you see, is to get the stars and staff PAID for not having asked for enough up front or backend compensation when the first movie far exceeds financial expectations on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. when you realize this, it's to pay people off, rather than produce a profit itself, it all becomes clear.
I wonder if it’s worth looking at what’s going into movie budgets these days. Is it technology, anti-COVID measures, stars’ salaries, inflation driving them up?
Joker 2 failed mainly because Todd Phillips isn’t particularly a talented director when it comes to anything that takes originality. He directed good comedy films in the 2000s and that’s fine but doesn’t make you a great film maker. Joker 1 was just a rip off of better Scorsese films, and the fact it was so well received scares me for where we are as a society tbh because it’s nothing new original or exciting
Ive seen some comments saying this started with WW84 or BVS but IMO bad/underperforming sequels have been a problem for WB since they started making superhero films. Literally the only time WB/DC has had two films in a row that have been good, profitable and well received was Superman/Superman 2 and Batman Begins/The Dark Knight. Sure you can try drawing a line after The Dark Knight and imagine that something changed at WB that made them make bad sequels but that overlooks the fact that WB struggled to do good follow ups before the DK trilogy - Batman returns was a disappointment after Batman 89. Batman & Robin flopped after the moderate success of Batman Forever. Superman 3 and 4 definitely didnt live up to the standards of superman and superman 2.
What did you think of Joker 2?
Support Bookshops and Bonedust: www.kickstarter.com/projects/wraithmarked/bookshopsandbonedust?ref=cb309z
Unnecessary yet could’ve been a great sequel
The Suicide Squad Sequel was really good, & I enjoyed Shazam 2 (& still want a Shazam 3), but the rest weren't good though.
Lol
@@jessetorres8738 Suicide Squad wasn't a sequel, it was basically a soft reboot of the first one.
The "madness of two" might be a comment on sequels...
This is what happens when you make a sequel solely because the original movie made a profit. If you don't have any type of plan or story to tell, it shows.
Greed fucks EVERYTHING up
Funny thing is, if they put in a minimal amount of effort the could have crapped out a mediocre sequel that didn't wow anyone, but also didn't OFFEND the fans. But they instead put an alarming amount of effort and budget into the art of insulting the fans. Will the execs learn? When "any press" stops being "good press" perhaps. But I'm not that optimistic
Pirates 2 were amazing, and only made because the first film made a ton of money
@@OpoOnTheGoI think they made Philips make this movie and just wrote him the blank check thinking that would help
@@tedarcher9120 well if dreams were horses, and horses were cars... They'd own a dealership truth be told. There's more to a hit than funding
Something I think is obvious is that clearly none of the directors of these movies except maybe James Wan had a vision beyond one film
Oh wow, that’s an excellent point!! I think that’s the underlying issue here. They aren’t considering part 2 and 3 when making the first. They all should have at least a rough idea of what part 2 will be before they start filing part 1.
You can still luck out - Dark Knight felt nothing like Batman Begins but you can tell the 3rd movie was already planned or thought out with part 2.
And most of the MCU movies felt like they thought out the sequels or they changed it up if the first was just okay (Thor).
@@Homer-OJ-Simpson It's funny you can "tell the 3rd movie was already planned or thought out with part 2" - cause Christopher Nolan sure couldn't. And didn't.
He literally had no idea what to make the movie about - thematically, plot-wise, what's the guiding idea...
So his brother suggested A Tale Of Two Cities and he went "Hey, that could work!"... and then he realized he had never actually read the book.
It is to his credit that he has managed to make the movie he had no idea how to make work cohesively with previous movies while providing a closure to the trilogy despite poorly sourced original material - a book about French Revolution (and family drama) and a TRULY TERRIBLE comic book "event" that is Batman: No Man's Land.
@@d3nza482 What makes No Man's Land "TRULY TERRIBLE"? While it certainly went on too long and suffered from having too many writers, some of it, like the parts written by Bob Gale, Greg Rucka and Devin Grayson, was truly great.
@@d3nza482 Nolan is a far better filmmaker than everyone else DC has been hiring. He writes and directs all of his projects and has zero misses in his entire catalog.
Ok, but in the other hand, I don't think that's something wrong.
I've read some (likely humorous) comments that say the giant budget of joker 2 is from todd phillips negotiating absurd amounts so that the movie didn't have to be made, only for the studio to actually gave him the money
So it's like a real life version of the producers?
This honestly and sadly wouldn't surprise me because the scenes all feel like they were all made on their own and then thrown together
*Suffering From Success*
Sure, sure... he made a bad movie on purpose.
@@d3nza482 I mean, it's been done many times before, and it'll be done many times again. Not saying that that's what happened here, but a director sabotaging their own films in order to get out of a contract with a studio or something of the like is far from an outlandish concept.
It's all about "Knowing when to stop" if you ask me. The first joker movie while not my favorite was a solid "self contained" movie. Just cause it made 1 billion dollars DOESN'T MEAN MAKE A SEQUEL.
Yes I'm aware how studios work, but part of a good business model is also knowing your limits.
Studios should learn that.
Hollywood logic, if a film makes a ton of money a sequel is mandatory
I also wasn't very fond of it, but it had real character development. The sequel isn't for the fans, it's from and for the corporate machinery that Hollywood has become...
Could not agree more. In general the entertainment industry doesn't know when to stop. Even books, everything is a series now. Rare to find fantasy or sci-fi books that are self contained. Movies are just on another level, they will milk it till the audience is tired and the IP is toxic.
Yeah that’s why Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 didn’t work. Their ideas for sequels weren’t very good and they shouldn’t have made them.
You can make a sequel, just would have help if they didn’t hate the fans of the first one
Wonder Woman 1984, Joker 2, Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2. I'm seeing a pattern here.
Batman V Superman was what started it all.
@@somerandoladThat's true.
I liked Shazam 2 and I’m not afraid to admit it
Honestly I don't think Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2 should have failed, it was put in a difficult time for pretty much most superhero movies
@@HufflepuffBaseball42313 I do like some things about it but the Rock ruined it
The thing that gives me the most hope for James Gunn’s DCU is his statements on storytelling. They will not go into production on anything until they have a finished script that they’re all satisfied with.
I think as long as they stick with that model, DC can come back better than ever.
I think with dc focusing on one movie rather than a franchise is what will make the movies work and be able to work with a actual dc universe. I'm hyped to also see creators being to actually with what they want to and not just thrown to a project.
I literally made a comment suggesting this plan! Didn’t know Gunn had said that but I said I’m glass half full and hope this leads to far fewer MCU and DC movies but the movies they make they can spend a lot more time and resources on it. I got tired of super hero movies even before Infinity Wars. Now I only forward to Spiderverse animated movies and Deadpool. Nothing else.
Is Gunn not in charge of these projects already? I'm confused about what part he is handling here
@@Luipaard005 He’s in charge, but he’s not writing every script.
Plus it helps that the guy running things actually seems to like comic books
wonder woman 1984 was one of the few movies i’ve seen lately that i could describe as shockingly bad. i was floored.
And I was looking forward to that one. The trailer for it was a favorite to watch.
I watched it recently. Your right. A disappointing film that made my jaw drop with how hard it was to watch while having one of the most beautiful women on screen. A paradox I still cannot explain, yet exists.
It was sooooo bad! And it was like the only new thing to watch at that point in the pandemic so I was pretty excited about it.
That's the only way to describe it lol
I’m feel like the only person who genuinely liked Wonder Woman 1984 more than the original. I know that I’m absolutely in the minority on that so I’ve always been curious to see why it’s so universally hated.
The fact that Terrifier a movie with a far lower budget is making more money and is the better clown, is very funny and ironic too
Terrifier is edgelord trash 🗑
@@idiot_city5444No? It's just a fun, junk food thriller.
If you count Peacemaker as a sequel to the Squad reboot, then that might be the best continuation that was greenlit. The Penguin show is a simillar story that acts as a continuation to The Batman.
The main issue with Joker 2 lies in Todd Phillips' lack of understanding of what makes a musical truly compelling. While many people criticize the decision to include musical elements, the real problem is that the set pieces themselves are underwhelming. The lyrics are forgettable, there's little choreography to speak of, and the camera work doesn't add any dynamism to these scenes. Imagine if the same story were paired with breathtaking musical numbers that fully embraced the chaotic nature of the Joker character-it would have elevated the film. The movie has plenty of intriguing ideas, but the execution falls short. The Joker movement subplot, for instance, needed more weight. We should have seen Arthur increasingly overshadowed by the Joker persona, creating a stronger narrative arc. While I appreciate the concept, the film ultimately feels like it needed another pass at the script to realize its full potential.
I dislike that this movie's reception made people think musicals are not a great thing when done well.
The songs weren’t even original. They were covers of actual songs
@BlackPuma124 that was one of my main issues. When I first heard it was going to be a musical I thought it had the potential to do something really interesting. A Joker musical with its own unique music could have been really fun, but juke box musicals have always felt kind of lazy and uninspired to me. Then the ending and so many other dumb ideas it just kinda felt designed for failure
@@TheBrotherGrim The funny thing is that the Joker character has musical songs/numbers done before. There's an iconic one in Arkham Knight.
That's Entertainment has "forgettable lyrics?" Come on. There are a lot of problems with Joker 2, but the songs aren't a part of it. The Sgt Pepper's movie wasn't a flop because the Beatles wrote bad songs.
It was a little shocking that The Batman Part II was delayed to 2026, but it does give Matt Reeves plenty of time to write the screenplay for the movie, which is a good sign that the movie will break the DC Sequel Curse.
Maybe. A delay didn't help Patty Jenkins with WW84.
It does feel like The Batman Part II might be at least good, Matt Reeves has proven that he can make a great sequel, look no further than the Planet of the Apes sequels. By stark contrast, Todd Phillips has proven that he CAN'T pull it off, look no further than the Hangover sequels. The latter of which has proven to be a giant red flag in hindsight and sure enough, Joker 2 ended up being DOA.
It still blows my mind that Marvel has risen and fallen in the time that DC has tried, failed, and tried again to even get their cinematic universe going. Cinematic universes came into and then went out of style before Warner could even get out of second gear.
Dark Universe never even got that far.
Joker 2 does something no other Superhero movie does that often
It loses the purpose of the first movie. In the first movie Arthur was mentally ill man with horrible living conditions and as the story progresses and the situations becomes worse and worse, he finally snaps and embraces his nature and finally has a genuine smile in the end, symbolizing the fact that he was happy as the Joker, he was finally seen and beloved by people, recognized for his actions as an Icon.
In the Second movie he apparently is not the Joker, gets shanked by a Heath Ledger look a like and Harley is the manipulator
Probably by design. I argue that Todd Philips made this movie as a "fuck-you" to the Joker chuds. Y'know, 40 year-olds on Facebook who share shitty motivational-posters about how they're bad and dangerous.
Let's be honest, 2019 Joker didn't destigmatize mental-illness. If anything, it might have made things worse.
it made it clear it was not pandering to incels
@@artychartybyjackmerlinbruc7134 Which is great on paper, because incels are objectively bad people, but in practice this ain't it chief.
@@artychartybyjackmerlinbruc7134 Yeah, instead, it uh, well, it pandered to people who complain about incels on youtube comments.
@@Yayojayoful It pandered to them by making a trash film?
One big thing i think most all of DCs failed sequels have in common is a failure to follow through on their main character.
Both Aquaman and Shazam have their main character act way more jokey and less seriously then they even were in the first, and Joker has a whole different relationship with his identity. Even Diana feels quite off in conparison in her sequel imo. It makes the the characters story between the films all the more disconnected and hard to get invested in
Aquaman 2 and Shazam 2 are two sides of the same coin in the sense the lead actors lowered the seriousness of their portrayals from the first film, but in different ways.
In Aquaman 2, Arthur felt like he wasn’t taking anything seriously because Jason Mamoa didn’t even feel like he was trying, like at all. So many scenes had Arthur wearing normal clothes that you frequently see Jason Mamoa wearing like in casual interviews and whatnot, which kinda made it seem like Mamoa just showed up to set, read some lines in a half-asses manner, and then called it a day.
On the other side of the coin, in Shazam 2, Zachary Levi felt like he was trying *too* hard. Like he took his silly, but still somewhat grounded, portrayal from Shazam 1 and decided to dial the goofiness up to 11 to the point that it went from silly to just stupid. He essentially Flandarized the character.
Another issue is that the sequels had underwhelming villians compared to the first. The daughters of atlas are very boring and uninteresting compared to sivana who always felt neglected by his father and brother and liked the power he gained from the seven deadly sins and manta is so one note that making him the main villian in the sequel make him not compelling especially with him being influenced/possesed by the trident.
@@mutalemwananshiku4098Weirdly enough, I would actually say I found Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal’s character) in WW84 to be one of the few decent parts of the movie and even more compelling than Ares in the first movie.
@@mutalemwananshiku4098 Black Manta was the one and only redeeming factor of Aquaman 2 and I absolutely adored him we don't accept Manta slander here.
The trident possession thing was really dumb though
@@GLC48 i thought ares was compelling , the issue was the cgi battle at the end.
The idea of Maxwell Lord is compelling its just the choices he made dont make sense.
You can, say that WB has been making a lot number 2s recently
Modern-day WB is just a vessel for Roadshow movies.
Wonder Woman is the most interesting.
It had the exact same director.
With all the mythology they could pull stories from What were they thinking.
I find it hard to get excited about Gunn taking over.
He's already setting up an entire "phase". People don't want phases. Stop trying to chase the MCU model. It's failed for everyone, hell at this point it's failing even for the MCU. If he tried to make a good one-off movie, and then build from that, I'd give it a chance. But I'm not watching another DC "phase".
They want it to be like comics. Storylines that bleed into each other, forcing you to buy issues of comics you don't care about just to get more context on the overall story. It's all Event Fodder. Designed to maximize profit, at the cost of all artistic value. How Dark Nights: Metal. 20 separate titles you have to buy for the full story. Look at Secret War 2. 32 different titles, required for the full story. I don't want to remember Dazzler exists, much less have to pay $3 just to find out why the Beyonder is even back. It's by design, and it won't get better as long as it's profitable.
I don’t think people know what they want at all
@@kazumahazeuzumaki the thing is that the comics themselves (speaking of Marvel and DC) are not exactly doing well commercially, so it is questionable whether that model is ideal, especially in the movie industry with its stellar production costs.
It work for the MCU for a few years because it was something new, but eventually even that had collapsed under its own weight.
@@peterthecollI want a good Superman movie... that's it.
I sometimes got the impression that WB thought that the names of these characters was enough to get people in seats when it’s obviously not.
No matter who the character is and how popular they are people aren’t gonna spend money to see a bad film.
If they thought that they wouldn't have spent so much on their budgets.
Shazam 2 was the least offensive of the bunch imo. There were some actually solid emotional moments, funny jokes, and cool action scenes. But my main issue with it is that the ratio between kid Billy and adult Billy was way off. Kid Billy (played by Asher Angel) got like 3 scenes in the entire movie. Meanwhile, the rest went to Zachary Levi who, while can be funny with the right balance, came off as more and more annoying the longer he stayed on the screen. Not only that, but his portrayal in Shazam 2 even felt like a Flandarized version of his portrayal in the first movie. I also didn’t like the blatant Gatorade and Skittles product placement. And it felt weird that they didn’t continue with the Mister Mind story that they initially teased, and instead went for OC villains instead.
Again, I still enjoyed it, but as someone who loved the first movie, I wish my boy Asher could’ve gotten more screen time.
Was there any coordination at all between Zachary Levi and Asher Angel? Always felt like Levi was acting according to his idea of a child, rather than connecting it to this portrayal of Billy
Of all the sequels mentioned, Shazam 2 was the only one I finished. It was okay - had some good movements. I started but never finished Wonder Woman and aquaman sequels…and I have no desire to see joker 2.
I honestly hated Shazam 2. It basically showcases everything wrong with DC films nowadays. From its lame, boring story, cliche and forgettable villains, and uninteresting comedy and one liners. Also that romance between Freddy and Anne was unnecessary.
Dwayne Johnson was one of the reasons why Shazam 2 wasn't as good. Obviously, Black Adam was going to be the villain of that movie (possibly summoned by Dr. Sivana and Mr. Mind) but Dwayne wanted Black Adam to fight Superman instead of Shazam and the Shazamily because he thought they were too silly for him or something. He even prevented the Justice Society to recruit Shazam in the post credits scene and Harcourt and the bearded guy (forgot his name) took their place.
The first movie had a budget of 65 million and that is perfect for a movie like that where you can't really predict how well it will do. The sequel is just the bloated mess you get when studios have a surprise success on their hand, but they don't know why it worked in the first place.
There HAS to be a kickback scheme going on. The mystery marketing costs, the inflated budget, that all goes to SOMEONE. Who it goes to and how much and what is expected in return is decided on by SOMEONE. I'm not crazy to think there is a lot of funneling corporate money to vendors who funnel that money right back to the executives that hired them in the first place.
Sounds like a Zaslav business model to me.
It's themselves. Just different departments. It's why they never make a profit and are loses on taxes but internally they've paid all these different departments.
I have been saying this for a while. There are a few extra wrinkles I would probably add but the general premise is that they're essentially using these huge projects to reallocate funds with zero intention of a successful project in terms of consumer purchase
The Joker movie didn't need a sequel because it set up a dead-end. The character was a loser who caught a wave and got swept into infamy. He wasn't any kind of mastermind or leader, and ending with his moment of glory was all the movie could do. The DC Universe "Joker" is a whole different ball of wax, and and has places to go, Arthur doesn't, and trying to move on from where his story ended doesn't work.
That is very true. Because while the Snyderverse movies were controversial, even when they made good movies like Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam and Joker, they still made Wonder Woman 1984, Aquaman 2, Shazam 2 and Joker 2.
1:39 Tell Batman what? WHAT?
"Tell batman he looks cute in black"
"Tell Batman, he rocks those suit nipples"
Tell Batman that "the Joker plane is here".
Those movies feel fragmented because Warner Bros have a revolving door for Exec's greenlighting, over seeing and releasing these movies.
It's hard to believe this is the same company that made the dark knight not just one of the best movies of all time but one of the best sequels as well hopefully batman part 2 finish this problem
Batman Vs Superman was where the sequel rot set in. Amazing the series limped on till 2024. But now we have Wonder Woman 84, Aquaman 2,Black Adam, Flash, Blue Beetle and Joker 2 all failing in a row. Gunn is going to have his work cut out getting customers back for the reboot so soon. They'd be better off leaving DC alone for 5 years so people can somewhat forget the trash of the last 8 years. Going straight into a reboot next year is going to leave many casual movie goers thinking it's all part of the DC of the last 8 years.
Finally I see someone that mentions BvS. That's where the true sequel problem begun
Instead of making a Man of Steel 2, they wasted trying to build an entire universe on one film
@@JustKrin Exactly. That and rushing the death of Superman in only the second movie!
The Penguin & Peacemaker are probably the best sequels DC has had in a while
Most directors should know when to leave a franchise
Some of them give everything they have to make a movie work
And most of the times they can't outdo themselves
Very certain every DC movie that's released after The Batman has been a flop
Fun fact: I saw a test screening of Wonder Woman 1984 in the fall of 2019. All of my comments about the movie were the same criticisms people made when the movie was released a year later. I don't think much changed from the test screenings to the final release, other than cleaning up the special effects
I am so sorry...
They keep miscasting and Mis conceiving Characters On Purpose Which Makes NO Sense.
I think the casting has been the only thing the DCU movies did consistently well. Yeah some weren't perfect choices, but I don't think any of them were bad.
Well, in the case of Joker 2, that was a sequel the director never wanted to make and made his intentions more clear that people missed with the first one, which is: Todd Philips hates superhero movies.
no, Tod Phillips hates incels
and he made Joker 2 to make it clear that his film was not a PRO incel film, lol
@@artychartybyjackmerlinbruc7134 He admitted that part of the point of Joker was to be an anti-superhero piece. He was frustrated that those were the only movies people were going to and making money.
DC has now 6 bad movies in a row:
Black Adam
Shazam! Fury of the Gods
The Flash
Blue Beetle
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
Joker: Folie à Deux
A musical could worked! Just look a Chicago. Great court room musical. It just they did NOT hire anyone who worked on a musical.
They need to stop forcing Todd Phillips to make sequels he doesn't want to make because his first movie made so much money just like The Hangover
I can't tell if Joker 2 is meant to be a middle finger to the studio (based) or the fanbase (cringe). I think it's really funny to receive a 200 million check from a corporation that has complete faith in you only to make intentional garbage, but not if its at the expense of the fans.
sounds like The Producers... create a flop that way the IRS doesnt even care to look at the financeers overcollecting on funds
Why can't it be both? He seems to hate the studio for making a cash-grab sequel as much as he hates the particular audience the first movie attracted.
Oh, I like the book recommendation at the end. My wife and I were able to check out the first one from our library. Looking forward to reading it this week!
I know it's not connected to the topic of the video, but it was really nice to see a sponsor not about a scummy product or service, but something that might actually interest the channel's audience.
Gotta love a sponsor segment that's not square space, a vpn or some other dtc thing, but just pure artistic expression.
When I went to see Joker 2, I actually went back to find a member of staff because I thought there was an error on my ticket and it said the wrong screen. "Why" do I hear you ask. Well it's a major blockbuster with widespread recognition and this was the first Saturday since its release. I was expecting a full and busy cinema. I even went through the unusual process of buying my tickets online because I didn't think I'd be able to get a seat. So naturally I couldn't believe my eyes when the trailers were about to start and it was empty. I was literally the only person there. I thought I had to have the wrong screen. Nope, it really was just empty. A little later some people did come in, but by the time the movie actually started there were maybe four people there.
This is why art takes PASSION not "I need to make a quick buck"
I don't get on stage to play your favorite songs and take your money, I'm up there to share a passion. You might not feel it but good, bad, I'm the guy with the guitar.
Justice League wasn't "ripped out of his hands", he left the project due to a family tragedy.
Not going to speak for CM, but I can see how someone would say that in the sense that, even if he left because of a family tragedy, the /vision/ itself was changed without Snyder’s consent and the studio doing reshoots and revisions to match Whedon’s vibe. So, in a way, studio executives “ripped” JL from Snyder for something they thought would get them more money.
How bout we let the Joker rest a bit? The character's been over-saturated to shit! I couldn't f* ckn believe when they teased yet ANOTHER Joker in the last Batman film 😱
It's just the nature of the character, dude. Every single iteration of Batman in the comics or tv shows have their own Joker
@Nova-fh2et after batman 89 which came our In 1989, you wouldn't see another joker on film until 2008
@@darrylbrumfield7659 I think you mean "after Batman, which came out in 1989,". Calling it Batman 89 is just repetitive. And you didn't see another Joker because all of the films from 1989-1997 were supposed to be the same continuity. How could the Joker come back if he was dead at the end of Batman (or Batman 89 if you would rather, which was released in 1989)
@Nova-fh2et bro the point is you didn't see joker on screen for 20 years. Giving him a break is not out of the ordinary. It's been done before
@@darrylbrumfield7659 bro, my point is that he wasn't seen for 20 years is because he was dead in that continuity and superheroes weren't as mainstream. Now with a lot more Batman iterations each one needs their own Joker
How could a movie made of plain musical numbers and courtroom scene have costed 200M USD? Where did that budget go?
Anyway, I think that the main problem with all these sequels essentially come down to the fact that they did not have particularly interesting stories to tell. Either they were tacked to what it was a clearly standalone movie that happened to be very successful (Joker 2) or they were put out with the intention to maintain certain IPs in the spotlight to keep alive a shared universe in which less and less people were interested in.
Now I'm nervous for The Batman 2
It's possible it could be at least good and that's because of Matt Reeves, the guy made two Planet of the Apes sequels and look how they turned out. It seems like he knows how to pull it off, unlike Todd Phillips (*cough* Hangover sequels *cough*).
I do want another Wonder Woman movie with Gal. I adored the first movie and love her take on the character.
Small point: I think it's misleading to say that Justice League was "ripped out of Snyders hands" as he chose to step away from that film to deal with a family tragedy. Whedon 100% did massive reshoots, changed the tone entirely, and apparently acted like a weiner on set to boot; but let's not give more air to the false narrative that came from the dubious "Release the Snyder Cut" campaign about the studio trying to undercut their anti-woke hero genius.
Is Snyder really supposed to be considered “anti-woke”? I’m not really big on his movies but considering his Justice League cast consists of a black man, a Polynesian man, an Israeli woman, and a non-binary person, he seems like someone who the “anti-woke” crowd should consider to be “woke”.
Don't forget Whedon was asked to do the reshoots. People act like he gave DC a call to fire Snyder so he could reshoot Justice League. No, DC producers saw the abysmal reception of both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad and wanted to play it safe by hiring the guy that made The Avengers, so he could make Justice League less Snydery. People love to only blame Whedon and he may be an asshole, but he just followed orders to create a different Justice League.
@@geelwashandje131 this too!
@@GLC48 trying to make sense of the Snyder Bro movement is not for the casual observer, but if you've never experienced the toxicity of men who were drawn to the hyper-masculine power fantasy that is the movie 300, consider yourself lucky.
Good Video! I always felt Joker never needed a sequel but would have rather seen similar movies that were character studies on other batman villains like two face or scarecrow.
You might say that directors have confused franchise destruction with franchise deconstruction.
the first aquaman was the most fun i've had watching any superhero movie. friend of the family was going through his first divorce and kept whispering "better hope that love is forever, aquaman" while eating sunflower seeds. the crackling had me cackling and the pitbull track was nice
1:55 The dark knight came out *16 years* ago. If you mainly get fed IP shit, sequels, prequels, remakes and spin-offs for 16 years, people might get a little bit tired of it.
5:30 hard to imagine anyone not learning this lesson after the snydercut fiasco
It all began with the "sequel" to Man of Steel: Batman v Superman. DC never recovered.
Ironically one of the few sequels that improved on its predecessor.
You know what? Aquaman 2 was fun, and I'm genuinely glad it was the note the DCEU went out on instead of The Flash.
I'll stan Aquaman 2 as long as there are haters, because it was so much more fun and earnest than a lot of superhero movies lately
I liked it too
Joker 2 is even more out of touch with what fans of the franchise wanted than Jurassic World Dominion with it's focus on cloned little girls and locusts.
As someone who once developed a script for Warner Bros and also looking at their movie trends for the past decade, there seems to be a consistent problem that's intertwined with each other from the studio. No matter who's in charge of it currently, that's like baked into their culture. One is that they will always seem to sacrifice short-term gains for a long-term goals, even more so than current Disney. Tying into that is that Warner Brothers has this problem of equating star power with success. No that sounds weird but put in perspective you have these fantastic Beast movies. The sequel to Harry Potter which is basically what Warner brother wants. They want an entire stable of Harry Potter like properties that they can just milk forever and you have Lana wachowski with the Matrix Resurrection. You have all of the DCE you films with their respective directors and actors such as the rock with black Adam and you have this current joker film. Warner Bros. Seems to not understand. Is that just because these people made something successful years ago does not mean they're going to guarantee you to make something successful now. They're thinking for example with this joker film and this is all they cared about on paper. They didn't look at the script or anything just like with Lana's stuff is they thought they could sell it on the name alone and they had the joker name. They had the original director and they had the actor who played that character who got an Oscar and then they dumped a ton of money on it but they didn't look at. Do we need a sequel? Does the director writer want to do one? Do they have an idea for one? Is it good? How can we minimize the budget effectively to maximize the amount of gross profit ECT. What a proper studio would do. Head all they saw was joker. Same creative team equals profit and it blew up in their face. Basically, I think that if it wasn't for dune, Warner Brothers would be in the same state that lionsgate is in right now.
Warner bros doesn’t deserve dc
Hey, long time subscriber, first time commenter. Appreciate that you put a lot of thought into your videos, but I can't help but feel like this one comes through as a little bit...thin? Like, I get it, DC has had a lot of bad sequels (I will not defend them) but I'm not entirely sure this video serves a purpose. I would have loved to see a little more info about the switches in leadership at the top, why DC is so sporadic or I guess just more background on all these movies and trying to connect the dots instead of how you laid it out. Plus the two minute ad at the end (I get it, gotta pay the bills). Hopefully that comes off as constructive criticism!
James Gunn’s Superman NEEDS TO SUCCEED. If it doesn’t that might be it for DC on film!
I love the 40s aesthetic. I appreciate your opinions. I appreciate your candor man. Your voice is great like I keep coming back to listen to these videos, bro just keep it the same and I’ll be here. Cheers man good content.
All of these sequels that you just mentioned in the video, needs to take a page out of Deadpool 2, (one of the greatest sequels ever made) by delving into their central characters, upping the seriousness and depth of their arcs and the themes of the story that the movie tries to convey.
I honestly believe he never wanted to make a second Joker. He did it on purpose and you can't convince me otherwise 😂
Granted I haven't seen the new Joker film, but from everything I've seen of the film, I can't imagine how they spent 200 million on it? Did they just pay Lady Gaga and Phoenix 150 million of it?
3:16 “How did Concord cost 400 million dollars?!”
-Watching The Games Go Bye
The Bale Batman films had good stories and kept adding new elements. Most of the other film series sequels feel off the mark. Superman 2 (1980) is the best superhero sequel of all time for it's humor and action. It really delivered and was memorable. Most new movies are just not very memorable. They feel like they are made by a committee checking boxes and there is no unique vision.
The problem with Wonder Woman 1984 is the director actually directed the movie entirely whereas she more or less had her hand held by the studio and Zack Snyder for the first movie. And she was woefully unprepared for it and it shows.
Yeah. WW1 was great but you could tell they "saved it in the edit" which means poor direction. But instead of fixing that (like Empire Strikes Back did) they gave undue credit for the success to Jenkins and we got WW1984 instead of a Spider-Man 2.
8:45 Speaking of Jokers 2 and DC Studios...there's something unhinged in the fact that Todd Philipps's Joker timeline is one of the three Batman feature film timelines that existed in less than 10 years.
I absolutely loved the original Joker movie. I didn't see the sequel because I don't like musicals. Who in the hell thought that would be a good idea?
I don't know, man. I am in (way too) deep with comics, and I loved the first film. I had ZERO interest in the sequel. The first was a standalone flash in the pan, and I could not imagine where this could go. As soon as it was announced, I asked, why??? You're right to bring up WW1984, that was an all-time bad film, but also, there are a million and one places that WW84, COULD have gone. Joker painted itself into a corner with the narrative being tied directly to Arthur's unravelling and offering social commentary all the way through.
Here's a question that I just don't understand. Do sequels, in general, make more than the original? I feel like we often see as a prize Hit movie, and then they throw money at the sequel, and it just doesn't deliver. The first movie was in part so successful because the budget was low, so when they throw all this money at the sequel, they are almost asking for failure.
Does it make sense that sequels get a bigger budget than the original? Do sequels perform better than the original? I get the idea of if, it worked once, it should work again. But we should be able to look at the history of sequels and see if that's true
Usually yes, a sequel will bring in more. Of course not always the case, but in most cases it is. You can for example, look at Marvel, almost all their sequels earn more than the originals.
I sometimes think about Wonder Woman 1984 and just shake my head. That movie!
Suprise, the super hero slop is not paying off anymore
I’m looking at this as glass half full…I’ve tired of the super hero movies and hopefully this will reduce the number of DC and Marvel movies that come out and maybe they spend more time working a project rather than spreading it out over so many movies
The animated Into the Spiderverse movies are the only ones I love now and then Deadpool second. They have their own thing going on.
Man, I had to double check if I watched your Joker 2 review, that's how wacky life has been... I forgot I watched Cap Midnight's review already
DC has a problem in general and that problem is Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers and Disney are just allergic to money these days. That's why they make terrible decisions.
How are they allergic to money ?
As soon as I saw Lady Gaga being cast and heard it was a musical I called this movie sucking and so many people told me I was gonna be wrong or that I was crazy and giving them a fat "I told you so" is so satisfying.
AKA: “i judged this film before ever having watched it”
good take lol 😂
@@artychartybyjackmerlinbruc7134 I was right.
It was bad, but not for these reasons.
@@sonofcronos7831 That's fair.
The Suicide Squad Sequel was really good, & I enjoyed Shazam 2 (& still want a Shazam 3), but the rest weren't good though.
The Suicide Squad is more of a soft reboot than a sequel
I agree, I actually enjoyed Shazam 2 despite some flaws it had in comparison to the first one.
@@iNostraDSoft-reboots, inherently, are sequels. They may share many elements with an actual reboot but the story, lore and continuity from previous works are retained.
Personally, I think Aquaman 2 was way better than Wonder Woman ‘84 and Shazam 2 combined. Also, people may celebrate Joker 2’s downfall, but lets be real here, WB won’t be making more of these Elseworlds-style movies ever again (least not in the near-future, and I think that’ll be a missed opportunity in the long run)
To pretend like “the sequel problem” applies to DC alone is wild. That’s not what this video is doing. It’s only a matter of time before a studio puts out “The Godfather Part 4” where the Corleone family is torn apart because Michael’s grandson can’t reconcile whether or not to finally take the family out of crime and into a respectable business enterprise or align with elves to possess the one true ring of power
There's a theory that a director of the second film [Joker] did it on purpose. He doesn't want to make a sequel, he doesn't want have his art to be another fast food franchise. So, when he heard Warner Bro planning to hire another director to make a sequel that's where he steps in make them look so bad it bombed.
The foe should have been named camelo
the superhero genre itself has outlived itself. Like the Zombie genre on TV. At some point, every phantasy about a world populated by zombies has been played through, and The Walking Dead had nothing else to say. Same with Superhero films. Unless there is a new take on things (think about "The Boyz"s idea of "What would happen if heroes were the villains?), that genre has been played through, as well. People need new stories. Even on the stock market. After the Amazon platform economy, AI is the new hot sh*t people like to gamble on. If that bet doesn't lead to industry-chaning results soon, these stocks will go down south - just like DC and marvel do.
WW84 was the worst by a long shot. I can’t think of a single redeeming aspect of it, while the Joker 2 is a super misfire. WW84 basically didn’t make sense and the editing was so bad that characters seemed to almost teleport.
IMO the first Joker became popular because it was The Joker even though it was different. Heath Ledger did such a good that people have been waiting for a Joker they could connect with. It got fans excited to see what was next since, Heath tragically died.
Sadly the people responsible for creating these movies was not connected to the fan base. The first was a take on the Joker the fans connected with but it seems like the director got lucky. So they got put in a pedestal and then they fell quickly after.
IMO this shows how little these directors understand who they are making these movies for, similar to the Star Wars sequels. These studios are losing billions because they don’t understand their audience.
My theory is that it’s out of touch investors. There is a lot of bullshit in Hollywood and I bet that hurts the development. I would imagine that’s why so many movies are the same, investors see certain themes as safe.
One redeeming aspect: Chris Pine had didn't understand a fanny pack.
(And Lynda Carter made a cameo and she's always awesome to see ❤)
BvS & Suicide Squad (2016) was still more nightmarish.
To be fair, even Nolan had a sequel misfire with The Dark Knight Rises.
True, he didn't really want to make it and it showed.
I don't even get excited for Marvel's or DC's movies anymore. My approach is to have low expectations, so if the movie is ggod it'll be a good surprise. But that good surprise hardly ever comes these days.
Same. I haven't watched a single MCU movie since Multiverse of Trashness. After watching that god awful movie I gave up on the MCU. And DC has always been messy. And the Boys and Invincible is alright, but honestly I think I just want completely new superhero universes. I just want writers to create movies like Hancock and Chronicle. Superhero films that have no comics but are purely original and have zero connection to Marvel or DC.
Thankfully The Batman 2 will at the very least, not be bad.
You're a man (or wom...*reads nickname* ) of faith
Based off how well reeves did withe apes films your right.
@@hectoraccented5312That sounds more like hope than faith but I agree with you, regardless.
You don't know that. No one does. The Batman 2 could be trash.
@@controlman7490 Your wrong about that
While I can’t speak for the other DC Movie sequels the problem with Joker for me at least is no matter which way my thoughts turned on it whether positive or negative it all came circling back around to one question: Why does this movie exist
And yes I know money but it’sjusr fascinating in how there’s so little reason for this movie to exist almost like in an endless loop
sequels, you see, is to get the stars and staff PAID for not having asked for enough up front or backend compensation when the first movie far exceeds financial expectations on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. when you realize this, it's to pay people off, rather than produce a profit itself, it all becomes clear.
Wonder Woman 2 was the perfect example of an airline flight, forgettable as soon as your off the plane
Wonder Woman had Oscar buzz? How? It's about as cookie cutter as they come.
I wonder if it’s worth looking at what’s going into movie budgets these days. Is it technology, anti-COVID measures, stars’ salaries, inflation driving them up?
I really liked the 30s jazz that was used in the background. You should use it more to suit the vibes of your videos.
Joker 2 failed mainly because Todd Phillips isn’t particularly a talented director when it comes to anything that takes originality. He directed good comedy films in the 2000s and that’s fine but doesn’t make you a great film maker. Joker 1 was just a rip off of better Scorsese films, and the fact it was so well received scares me for where we are as a society tbh because it’s nothing new original or exciting
Ive seen some comments saying this started with WW84 or BVS but IMO bad/underperforming sequels have been a problem for WB since they started making superhero films. Literally the only time WB/DC has had two films in a row that have been good, profitable and well received was Superman/Superman 2 and Batman Begins/The Dark Knight.
Sure you can try drawing a line after The Dark Knight and imagine that something changed at WB that made them make bad sequels but that overlooks the fact that WB struggled to do good follow ups before the DK trilogy - Batman returns was a disappointment after Batman 89. Batman & Robin flopped after the moderate success of Batman Forever. Superman 3 and 4 definitely didnt live up to the standards of superman and superman 2.
I’m starting to get scared for The Batman Part II
I'm vengeance
Leaving a comment for engagement.
(Keep up the good work)
When both the director and starring actor were originally saying the movie doesn't need a sequel it's a bad idea to force one.