Joker 2 (Folie à Deux)

After what Phoenix did to Todd Haynes, I don't think there will be much good will left among film producers towards Phoenix

What are you talking about? Todd Phillips wrote and directed the film. Are you saying Phoenix had creative control over Phillips? If so why and how? Proof?

Phoenix dropped out of a film that Todd Haynes was directing, just before filming started.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/j...ie-1236101595/

Thanks Allaby. So when it comes to Joker 2 it's still Todd Haynes fault? Is that correct?

Yup.



I strongly suspect neither Phoenix nor Phillips had any intention of making a straightforward sequel to Joker. I think we're on Joe Dante making Gremlins 2 territory here.



The clue, I think, is in that title: Folie a Deux translates as 'Shared madness' or 'shared delusion'. But the literal translation is 'folly of two'. It seems clear to me that this a comment on even making a second movie in the first place.


So they've made it on the grounds - and only on the grounds - that they get to do something radically different from the first that deconstructs the first (like Joe Dante) and...


... looks like for the vast majority of people it's a swing and a miss. But, personally, I have to respect the effort. Don't give people more of the same. That's dull...


... although I'm sure the execs at Warner Bros do not feel the same way this week.

__________________
There is no noun that cannot be verbed.

You're the one who started talking about Phoenix's next film

Agreed, good call.

So he made a much better film than the original one?

I think I agree that doing something different had to be the motivation. But, does doing something different have to result in doing something different poorly? Why could they have not done something different well? I get that they didn't want to do a carbon copy of the first film, but I think there are a lot of other ways to keep things interesting without turning "Joker" into a bad version of a musical.

I haven't seen the new Joker yet, but if it is as bad as people say, I suspect it is the fault of a number of people, although primarily the director Todd Phillips (not to be confused with the other director named Todd Haynes).

Arguably.


At least they've done something interesting, which most sequels do not.



People like familiarity though. (Hence the current state of the mainstream American film industry overall.) Audiences tend to get quite cross when a second movie isn't simply more of the same.



I've no idea yet if Joker 2 is better than the first. But I certainly won't be surprised if I prefer it given the reaction that it's had and given that I only found the first to be OK.

Todd Haynes seems to be making more money in this thread than Joker 2.

That's fair. Different doesn't automatically mean good. But -- to me, anyway -- it's more interesting than just doing more of the same, even if you fail.

Doing something different isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

But Joker 2 is a bad movie because nothing about it works. It is neither a good musical nor a good movie in any sense of the word.

i didn't realize this was a musical

Apparently, the filmmakers didn't, either.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...174327491.html

same here cause me and my support were gonna see it until my friend told me it was a musical so we were lucky we didnt buy the tickets

It's not just a critical failure, it's also a box-office bomb



https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...re-1236025168/

Just speculation on my part, but Joker just doesn't seem like the kind of film that needs a sequel, or where a good sequel could be plausibly made, but it was also a huge hit. So maybe Phillips just thought, well, it's a license to do whatever weird thing I want. A straight sequel is just going to disappoint and this was a special opportunity to get to do something bizarre with a lot more money than you could reasonably expect.