Burn Posted October 15 Posted October 15 And if you took your stan goggles off and looked at the movie objectively, would you still be saying that?
Doctor Dick Posted October 15 Posted October 15 (edited) I completely agree. It's a well-acted movie with great visuals but it catered to the wrong crowd. It's like if a heterosexual male pressed play on a Playboi Carti album and got a dance-pop mpg album. The album could've been nice but not to the demo he had. It's the equivalent of that. It's nowhere near as bad as Madame Web or Morbius which were considered awful movies in terms of acting, visuals and plot. Joker only has a problem with its plot but that problem isn't because it's dumb, it's because of its genre. The movie would've been a 6/10 if it got the right marketing. And probably with the right marketing would've crossed $500 million and be labeled a successful musical. But WB wanted a musical to reach $1B which is ridiculous. Edited October 15 by Doctor Dick 3 2 1 3
ATRL Moderator Legend E Posted October 15 ATRL Moderator Posted October 15 People went to see The Substance instead 5 2
vuelve88 Posted October 15 Posted October 15 4 minutes ago, Doctor Dick said: No, it's serving incompetence. The reason why the film bombed and is heavily disliked is mostly due to its marketing targeting the wrong demographic, which also explains its Cinemascore being a D. The easiest comparison would be American Psycho with Christian Bale which is regarded as a great film but when it was released it flopped and... received a D Cinemscore as well. Why? Because it was branded the wrong way so when people bought a ticket they got something completely different than what they were anticipating. JFAD and American Psycho are literally perfect examples of bad marketing. WB should've marketed it as a musical instead of an r-rated thriller. It was the wrong approach and ended up burying the movie. Or they could have just made a movie that appealed to the people who watched and enjoyed the billion dollar grossing first movie… Branding wouldn't have made much of a difference. They neglected their original audience, and the market for people who like super hero musicals is basically nonexistent.
simplywohoo Posted October 15 Posted October 15 jesus christ get over it and simply dont open the threads or watch the tiktoks
Doctor Dick Posted October 15 Posted October 15 2 minutes ago, vuelve88 said: Or they could have just made a movie that appealed to the people who watched and enjoyed the billion dollar grossing first movie… Branding wouldn't have made much of a difference. They neglected their original audience, and the market for people who like super hero musicals is basically nonexistent. Yeah they should've done that first and foremost. But when they decided to do a musical instead they should've just marketed it as that.
P.O.P Posted October 15 Posted October 15 2 minutes ago, simplywohoo said: jesus christ get over it and simply dont open the threads or watch the tiktoks Exactly! If you can't take the heat... go watch Joker 2 because I am sure it is cold in that empty ass theaters. 3
alexrex Posted October 15 Posted October 15 This is a troll thread. But no, the film is very bad. Get over it. 1
honestopinion Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I also thought the hate train is ridiculous till today when I finally saw the movie, half of the audience left during the movie and everyone was saying how disappointed they're when the movie finished. I love musicals but even for me it was nothing special, boring and some moments were disgusting
SUNSET BLVD Posted October 15 Posted October 15 8 minutes ago, Burn said: And if you took your stan goggles off and looked at the movie objectively, would you still be saying that? Yes? I feel like I'm living in alternate universe where people insist on the terribleness of the movie but it…just isn't there? Some of my favorite scenes were Joaquin's. 1
Venice B Posted October 15 Posted October 15 That's what happens when you merge two of the most deranged groups that exist: comic book fans and pop music fans. 1
SUNSET BLVD Posted October 15 Posted October 15 5 minutes ago, vuelve88 said: Or they could have just made a movie that appealed to the people who watched and enjoyed the billion dollar grossing first movie… Branding wouldn't have made much of a difference. They neglected their original audience, and the market for people who like super hero musicals is basically nonexistent. But Joaquin and Todd had a very specific vision for the story they wanted to tell and how they wanted to do it and this is what they chose. I know it's incomprehensible to some people but sometimes people feel really strong about an artistic vision even with the risk of a financial loss. If film and music and merely created to make a profit than WHAT IS THE POINT 1
Domination Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I mean, it's not a good movie. What's more surprising is how much OGHs are relishing in it considering how irrelevant she is to the plot and movie at large and the parts she's in are unquestionably the best parts because she's the only element at play that isn't just retreading plot points from the first movie. 1 2
Doctor Dick Posted October 15 Posted October 15 25 minutes ago, velocity said: i hated the movie but most people hopped on the hate bandwagon and haven't seen the movie at all (obvious considering the gross) More people hate it than the gross implies have seen it Wonder why. 1 1
SUNSET BLVD Posted October 15 Posted October 15 All the backlash about this movie that I've seen has revealed to me that: 1. viewers are very rigid in terms of what they're willing to accept as far as continuation of story and turn against stories/characters when they don't like the plot, character development or medium through which the story is told 2. people have truly let their misogyny flag fly, blaming Gaga for her involvement and using her as scapegoat despite: a. Having the best reviews b. The musical aspect being Joaquin's idea c. Todd being the director hmmm. How is Gaga to blame exactly? 4 1
vuelve88 Posted October 15 Posted October 15 2 minutes ago, SUNSET BLVD said: But Joaquin and Todd had a very specific vision for the story they wanted to tell and how they wanted to do it and this is what they chose. I know it's incomprehensible to some people but sometimes people feel really strong about an artistic vision even with the risk of a financial loss. If film and music and merely created to make a profit than WHAT IS THE POINT It's a film that had a $200 million budget (before advertising) and was greenlit by Warner Bros with the expectation that it would be a blockbuster hit grossing over $1 billion like its predecessor. People can comprehend having an artistic vision. I get that you want to stan, but Warner Bros isn't releasing movies for artistic vision — they're after profits. And regardless, the artistic vision was panned, so it failed in that aspect too.
SUNSET BLVD Posted October 15 Posted October 15 (edited) 6 minutes ago, vuelve88 said: It's a film that had a $200 million budget (before advertising) and was greenlit by Warner Bros with the expectation that it would be a blockbuster hit grossing over $1 billion like its predecessor. People can comprehend having an artistic vision. I get that you want to stan, but Warner Bros isn't releasing movies for artistic vision — they're after profits. And regardless, the artistic vision was panned, so it failed in that aspect too. I understand that companies fund things with the intent to profit but that doesn't negate that directors, screenwriters and actors can also want to make something that isn't just soulless fan service. Why should/would Joaquin and Todd want to commit time and energy to a project just to serve something palatable to the audience if they aren't invested in that particular story? Like, look at the beetlejuice movie. It was a critical and commercially successful despite also have NO PLOT. It's a soulless movie that used nostalgia and familiarity to turn a profit despite having zero artistic merit as a movie. also, not for nothing but the movie has a 33% which isn't great but…it's not like it's 5%. There's still a decent percentage of critics who actually liked it…. Edited October 15 by SUNSET BLVD
45seconds Posted October 15 Posted October 15 55 minutes ago, A Million Lights said: Watched the movie yesterday and it's actually good the hate train on TikTok completely destroyed the film's reputation. I bet most people would like if they watched it The hate train on [143] is becoming ridiculous [Listened to] the [album] yesterday and it's actually good the hate train on TikTok completely destroyed the [album's] reputation. I bet most people would like if they [listened] it
Broken Posted October 15 Posted October 15 42 minutes ago, vuelve88 said: Nobody wants a superhero musical 2028: Marvel Studios' Dazzler becomes first musical superhero movie to gross $1B 1
vuelve88 Posted October 15 Posted October 15 1 minute ago, SUNSET BLVD said: I understand that companies fund things with the intent to profit but that doesn't negate that directors, screenwriters and actors can also want to make something that isn't just soulless fan service. Why should/would Joaquin and Todd want to commit time and energy to a project just to serve something palatable to the audience if they aren't invested in that particular story? also, not for nothing but the movie has a 33% which isn't great but…it's not like it's 5%. There's still a decent percentage of critics who actually liked it…. That's what indie films are for and something both could have pursued through self-financing. There's no amount of spin you can put that makes this a redeeming situation for Todd, Joaquin, or WB. It's one thing if it were an acclaimed film that just didn't resonate with audiences. But it is both a critical and commercial failure. Both 33% and 5% are rotten. It's like flunking a test but saying at least I got a high F rather than a low F. 3
Oktober Knight Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Girl, literally EVERYONE disagrees with you and it had one of the worst drops in history during it's second week. Just admit that it's a bad movie and move on. The "hate train" is well deserved.
Reginald Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I think the "hate train" is so intense, because this movie was arguably THE most-hyped release of the year. At one point, everyone (excluding OGHs lol) expected this movie to be a huge success.
Dula Peep Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I saw it with a group of friends and we all went in with the expectation that it was going to be one of the worst movies ever and all walked out saying it wasn't that bad... just boring. 1 1
Recommended Posts