Jump to content

Joker: FAD to lose $150-200M, one of the biggest box office bombs ever


Recommended Posts

Posted

I read a theory that the purpose of this movie is to actually destroy Joaquin's Joker because the character was too attached to the actor which could possibly make other actors in other flicks playing Joker having a hard time when it comes to acceptance by the public. It must be it, it's the only explanation for this atrocity.

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Assassin

    92

  • Doctor Dick

    45

  • V$.

    42

  • shyboi

    41

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Hurem said:

Joker: FAD being a boring movie has nothing to do with the actors involved, but with the director and the writers making all the wrong choices. If you wanna blame it on an actor, it's Joaquin who's to take the blame considering they based the movie on his dream :skull: We have receipts of Todd Philips dismissing Gaga's input, which makes it even funnier to see you all call it Gaga's Joker. Critics agree her performance was one of the few saving graces in a movie that otherwise went nowhere.

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_folie_a_deux

 

A Star Is Born's success can not be solely contributed to Gaga, though using two of your brain cells should make you understand that she was part of the movie's success - alongside other people who worked on it. But you'd rather go down the misogynistic path of #ThankYouBradley, ignoring the fact that Gaga was behind one of the most vital and defining elements of the movie - the soundtrack.

Like you've been spamming in this thread constantly: stay in school because this again has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I know some of you like to spin other's people words around to try to make sense of what you want to say but this ain't going to work with me.

 

Point out exactly the moment I said that the actors of this film are directly responsible for the film being boring. Quickly. Again, all I'm saying is that an actor's contribuition is CENTRAL to a film, so it's safe to categorize this as Lady Gaga's Joker: Folie A Deux, since you know, she's the female lead of the film. Her performance was super acclaimed? Good for her, more reasons to even call this Lady Gaga's Joker: Folie A Deux.

Edited by Antisocialites
  • Like 12
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TipToe said:

I read a theory that the purpose of this movie is to actually destroy Joaquin's Joker because the character was too attached to the actor which could possibly make other actors in other flicks playing Joker having a hard time when it comes to acceptance by the public. It must be it, it's the only explanation for this atrocity.

I don't think WB would blow hundreds of millions of doallrs for Joaquin's acting career

 

:suburban:

  • Like 1
Posted

OGH really needed this huh... what are the Katyrats gonna do when LG7 outdebuts OneFadtyThree times x3 and she actually bags another No.1 single?

 

:ryan3:

  • Haha 3
  • Thumbs Down 6
Posted
3 minutes ago, Antisocialites said:

Point out exactly the moment I said that the actors of this film are directly responsible for the film being boring. Quickly. Again, all I'm saying is that an actor's contribuition is CENTRAL to a film, so it's safe to categorize this as Lady Gaga's Joker: Folie A Deux, since you know, she's the female lead of the film. Her performance was super acclaimed? Good for her, more reasons to even call this Lady Gaga's Joker: Folie A Deux.

Just to make things clear, do you agree that despite Gaga's super acclaimed performance, the movie was bad because of choices made by the director and the writers?

  • Haha 1
Posted

:ahh:
 

I should feel bad for her but I don't, monsters deserve the meltdowns they're having, karma got them really good.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pikacho said:

Um no? I'm just being realistic.

 

59 minutes ago, Witnessed ET said:

I just realized you and @Pikachoo are different people :deadbanana2:

Same :deadbanana2:

Posted
39 minutes ago, SoundsandSongs said:

so obviously the performance of both movies/soundtracks was not 100% due to her. But you can't claim Gaga's ASIB and Shallow success is because of her

I don't think anyone in their right mind placed ASIB's success completely on her though? It seems like the cursed cycle of OGHs not being able to stand her success so they wanted to diminish it with #ThankYouBradley narrative, which made Liddos go a bit overboard with defensiveness. And now it's happening with J:FAD as well where OGHs delude themselves into thinking Gaga was the reason of its failure, even though we've gotten many receipts on how Todd Philips fumbled the bag with this one.

Posted
11 hours ago, Yes, AND said:

I hope Nurtec have been keeping her supplied in these trying times. 

Is it possible gaga intentionally put out a migraine inducing album and "movie" in order to increase Nurtec sales…? 
 

:eek:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 12
Posted

So the director should have given more creative freedom? For what? To add even more unwanted singing? 
 

Gotta love the level of delusion to think she knows better than a movie director, especially for a movie in which she's "just a supporting role". 

  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Solar said:

that's not overwhelming sis

Twice as many search for Bruno instead of gaga. So what adjective do you wanna use?

  • Like 6
  • Haha 5
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Elementary said:

So the director should have given more creative freedom? For what? To add even more unwanted singing? 

Gaga was the one who wanted more dialogue, but Todd cut it out of the movie because he felt the "vibes" asked for more singing :skull: 

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Solaria said:

OGH really needed this huh... what are the Katyrats gonna do when LG7 outdebuts OneFadtyThree times x3 and she actually bags another No.1 single?

 

:ryan3:

Gaga hasn't had a solo #1 since the first Obama administration, so I guess the lead will be a collab then? :ryan3:

Edited by Assassin
  • Haha 12
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
1 hour ago, SoundsandSongs said:

Being consistency with standards is key.

 

You can't say ASIB's performance is because of Gaga and then claim Joker 2's performance has nothing to do with her. She was plastered over all the Joker 2 marketing material and plays a major role. One of the major drawcards of movies is the actors and word of mouth on how they portrayed the characters. This goes for the soundtracks too. 

 

Gaga was not the director of either movie and Brad/Joaquin are the male leads so obviously the performance of both movies/soundtracks was not 100% due to her. But you can't claim Gaga's ASIB and Shallow success is because of her and Joker 2's flop doesnt have anything to do with her when both are group efforts.

 

Ultimately the only way we'll see how it impacts Gaga in the long run is with LG7 and her next movie. It's way too premature to count her out.

yall acting like only shallow was big when ARUTW is on its way to 2 billion :rip:

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Yes, AND said:

 

I always cringe when I see her interviews about acting, the way all those other celebs did on that Zoom with her. Career actors are typically like, "Yeah it was a great script, I had a lot of fun" and somehow for her every character she plays is so deep and "personal." 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 10
Posted

Omg I just caught up. This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. The way I can't breathe :deadbanana4::deadbanana4::deadbanana4::deadbanana4::deadbanana4::deadbanana4:

  • Haha 3
Posted

I've only read the last two pages of this thread and I think I've seen enough. This  is chaos. :deadbanana2:

  • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.