Variety reports the new Joker film sequel has gotten one of the lowest ratings to date that could be expected for a comics-based adaptation:
“Joker: Folie à Deux” is falling flat after earning a “D” CinemaScore, the lowest grade ever from the research firm for a comic book movie.
The previous record holder was 2015’s “Fantastic Four,” which received a “C-” CinemaScore . Meanwhile, “Folie à Deux’s” predecessor, the 2019 original “Joker” from director Todd Phillips, earned a “B+” grade through the research firm’s survey of early crowds.
Well the first film really shouldn’t have been supported, based on the whole emphasis of villainy that’s come at the expense of heroism. As I’d once pointed out before, Hollywood’s romanticization of the kind of evil the Clown Prince of Crime represents is a bad omen, and this sequel is only perpetuating the crisis. Here’s what Forbes has to say:
…the general consensus is that A) it did not need to be made, B) it is boring, C) the musical numbers are too frequent and not good and D) absolutely everyone hates the ending.
The film has caused current DC leadership like James Gunn to distance from the project, reminding people that it is not a DC Studios offering, but from Warner Bros. which is different. Director Todd Philips, who has been raked over the coals for this sequel, has said he’s done with DC and is moving on.
We are still waiting for the final box office weekend totals here, but it looks like the movie may debut with a quarter of the original’s numbers despite a budget that is four times in the original. It remains to be seen if it can crawl to become a financial success long term, but in terms of audience reception, it literally could not get worse.
As a film starring villains, it’s another poor example Hollywood’s setting up. Luckily, as Breitbart’s just reported, a movie that may have cost a pretty penny is beginning to tank:
In a turn of events that only Arthur Fleck would find funny, the follow-up to Todd Phillips’ 2019 origin story about the Batman villain opened in theaters nationwide this weekend to a muted $40 million, according to studio estimates Sunday, less than half that of its predecessor. The collapse was swift and has many in the industry wondering: How did the highly anticipated sequel to an Oscar-winning, billion-dollar film with the same creative team go wrong? […]
“Joker: Folie à Deux” cost at least twice as much as the first film to produce, though reported figures vary at exactly how pricey it was to make. Phillips told Variety that it was less than the reported $200 million; Others have it pegged at $190 million. Warner Bros. released the film in 4,102 locations in North America. About 12.5% of its domestic total came from 415 IMAX screens.
If that means it’s being screened in 3D, that makes it even worse. We could sure do without that kind of technology here.
Most interesting is that here, we have yet another live action DC production that puts Harley Quinn to poor use. Slash Film gave some history of how she was first created:
Harley’s devotion to the clown prince never faltered, even when he was relentlessly cruel to her, repeatedly fed her to hyenas, physically assaulted her, and otherwise treated her like an object devoid of personhood. Every time Harley came close to acknowledging this abuse, which can be very complex and difficult for an abuse victim, Joker would manage to manipulate her with ease, as best exemplified in “Gotham City Sirens,” where only a few faux-sweet words detract Harley from exacting revenge on him. The intent of these arcs has always been to highlight how unsavory and dangerous this push-and-pull dynamic has become, where one of Gotham’s brightest minds falls prey to the noxious, manufactured charm of a methodical monster who uses her trauma to further his agendas.
However, as Harley became more fleshed out as a nuanced character in her own right — namely in “Mad Love,” where we get her origin story — a need for her to reclaim her personhood was immensely felt. Her romantic relationship with Poison Ivy evolved into the key for her to break free of this abusive cycle with the Joker, and this was realized in myriad ways in various versions of her arc. 2016’s “Suicide Squad” sets the foundation for her eventual self-reclamation (albeit in the most confusingly shallow manner), which culminates rather beautifully in “Birds of Prey,” a film that allows Harley to be her most authentic self without Joker’s shadow looming over her.
Does Todd Phillip’s “Joker: Folie à Deux” follow the same path? On the contrary: The sequel to “Joker” completely rebrands and recontextualizes Harley’s (an underutilized Lady Gaga) relationship with Arthur/Joker (Joaquin Phoenix) to complex, messy ends.
I just don’t understand how anybody doesn’t see HQ’s origin and premise as problematic. Or why a character who may have appeared in less than 10 episodes of the original cartoon on TV somehow becomes a huge commodity overnight. Goodness knows there’s only so many minor characters who’ve had overblown franchises built and centered around them, or maybe more specifically, the costumes they wore? It’s long become pure theater of the absurd, and we could do without all this kind of approach whose worst flaw is that it’s not merit-based. If memory serves, Poison Ivy, originally created in 1966, only became more a lesbian around the turn of the century when suddenly, they began doing this as part of early wokeness. (Of course, one can only wonder if a gay male couple would be characterized as crooks like Ivy and Quinn are.) And it’s only served to dilute whatever potential they’ve ever had ever further.
So you too found it, boring, confusing, mean, spirited, and badly executed? https://t.co/w7ql2dxxtz
— The Based Geek (@TheBasedGeek) October 10, 2024
Will the impending failure of the Joker sequel discourage movies about villains, if not comics adaptations themselves? Well let’s hope so, because even the Venom movies are far too much. Maybe what this proves, above all, is that the Batman franchise got way out of hand, and we could do with less of those too.
Originally published here.
English (US) · 