Why did Joker 2 lose so much money? And how on earth did it cost so much in the first place?
Why did Joker 2 lose so much money? And how on earth did it cost so much in the first place?
Todd Phillips’ first take on the supervillain was a billion-grossing smash, but setting out to chastise devoted fans with the second looks set to cost the film industry dear
To quote Heath Ledger’s version of the clown prince of crime, maybe some wag should be scrawling “Why so serious?” on glass-fronted offices at Warner Bros Discovery this week, as executives there contemplate the box-office implosion of Joker: Folie à Deux. A catastrophic $37.7m opening weekend, the largest second-weekend drop for a DC film (81%), a worldwide take currently standing at a piddling $165m … how has the studio gone from the 2019 original, a billion-grosser that was then the highest earning R-rated film, to this?
...
With bubonic word of mouth, Joker: Folie à Deux is now projected to lose $125m-200m, depending on whose budget estimate you believe. If it’s the $300m figure being generally touted for production and marketing, then this is clearly what has hobbled the film; it would leave it needing as much as $475m to break even. Risky reinventions of hallowed pop-cultural icons are a lot more feasible on the first film’s sensible $60m budget.
$300m is a shocking amount. The money is up on the screen in the sense that director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix were both paid $20m and supporting actor Lady Gaga $12m; over a quarter of the $200m production budget. But other than beautiful lighting and cinematography, and the climactic sequence, the film doesn’t look outrageously lavish. A cloistered affair set largely in Arkham State Hospital and the courtroom, there’s virtually nothing in the way of extended CGI pyrotechnics to explain the spend. The likeliest explanation is that it was a big bet born out of pandemic desperation for a surefire hit when cinemas reopened.
...
Phillips evidently wanted to course-correct after accusations that he had indulged toxic fandom in the first film. Having Arthur Fleck definitively dismiss the Joker as a pathetic psychological crutch certainly gets his point across.
But chastising the fanbase so openly is tantamount to box office self-harm (probably why the director refused to test-screen Joker: Folie à Deux). The impunity of a $300m budget seems to have led Phillips to mistake this for an auteur film, and shooting during a period of regime change at both Warner and DC reportedly allowed him to operate with weak oversight. According to Variety, he refused to liaise with new DC heads James Gunn and Peter Safran, saying: “With all due respect to them, this is kind of a Warner Bros movie.” But he also pushed back on new Warner president David Zaslav’s suggestions for lowering the budget, including moving the shoot to London rather than Los Angeles.
...
The film’s nosedive will have repercussions for the still-floundering DC and beyond. This kind of overly conceptual punt will surely become verboten in blockbusters for some time, and you wonder if it will force more conservative reimaginings of other returning icons, particularly Bond. It’s another question whether this almighty flop will give pause for thought in Hollywood about squeezing beloved IP until it has no more juice to give. Could Phillips’ sluggishness in converting realism into expressionism be something to do with the fact that this is the fifth major outing for the Joker in just over 15 years?
Well, based on what I've heard from people that have seen it, the problem is that it's a total departure in tone and focus from the first one.
You do that in a sequel, and you can't expect a lot of butts in seats.
It's not just that, but it goes all Dune: Messiah. Todd Phillips was clearly unpleased that some viewers saw Joker as the hero, so what was subtext in the first film is just bludgeoned into the audience in the second through the media of a really dull court appearance. The start had some promise and the idea that it was a musical was at least intriguing but it just becomes increasingly boring as the film drags on.
I thought that was just me being ADHD lol. I watched from home and paused a few times to do other stuff. I didn't think it was great, but not the worst. I also went in looking forward to the musical numbers that somehow people didn't know about. Overall maybe 6.5/10? (This is probably the first time I've graded a film tbh)
The funniest thing about this movie is that there is a video of Joaquin and gaga talking to each other on the premier with no sound. And someone who can read lips translates it to Joaquin asking gaga what this piece of shit is supposed to be. And she said something like: it's not thaaaaat bad.
Ultimately, it seems like no-one on the creative side wanted to make a sequel but Warner Bros kept throwing money at it until they couldn't say "no".
It’s another question whether this almighty flop will give pause for thought in Hollywood about squeezing beloved IP until it has no more juice to give.
We can but dream that this year's setbacks will make film studios think twice about mercilessly trying to keep milking the cow when it has nothing left to give.
I hope that we get back to filmmakers making films they are enthusatic to create rather than making "content" that a studio wants. Is there any wonder that audiences increasingly shun the pap being shovelled at them?
It's why I am hopeful for James Gunn's run at DC as he knows his stuff and is clearly out to create movies and TV shows that he is excited about.
I had no idea this existed before people hated on it. are my ad blockers too good, or is there a problem with the marketing of Hollywood movies now? Felt the same with megalopolis
A number of films had minimal marketing because the studios knew they were going to crash and burn (Borderlands, Megalopolis, etc) but I am unsure about Joker - both it and Megalopolis have had a lot of press in the build up to their release and afterwards (often not very flattering press but still...). They've both had a lot of posts here so it would have been difficult to avoid.
Thats interesting, as I had a vague awareness they were making a sequel, and also only really heard more once it had hit cinemas and they were already declaring it a loss.
I don't remember seeing a lot of posts here on the run up to the release. But perhaps I just ignored it because I couldnt see how a sequel was going to do the story justice and not just be a blatant cash grab.
Megalopolis suffered from unwilling distributors, so that easily explains its lack of PR and why you hadn't heard about it. Not so with this movie.
This is libelelious hitpiece. The movie has obviously earned Jokrillion dollars at the box office!
It actually made a quadrillion Jokeroonies - it did so well that they had to invent a new currency. Unfortunately, it means we can't compare its box office with anything else, but it definitely did really well.
Who are the slack-jawed idiocracy plebians that keep paying money to sit in theatres to consume this neverending brainrot?