I feel like without Gaga, the movie would have been even a more colossal flop because she along with Joaquin were praised for their actings.

But most people then had the tendency to blame ALL OF the failure of this movie on her without any regard towards the script/director/producer.

My question is, would Joker have been more acclaimed/successful had another actress played Lee? (and who would fit in?)

It would have flopped regardless. The movie is a mess, too bloated and long.

It would've been even less of a moment in internet conversation and hype

I feel like most critics agreed that Gaga was misused/underused in the film despite being one of the better aspects. It was just a questionable movie by a director who clearly didn't want to be making a sequel

Idk wasn't joker without gaga a huge success. Part of it is the plot but also gaga. People don't really care about gaga movies. House of Gucci was really bad, she just lost her momentum as an actress.

Edited March 13Mar 13 by ugo

Just now, ugo said:

Idk wasn't joker 1 without gaga a huge success. Part of it is the plot but also gaga people don't really care about gaga movies. House of Gucci was really bad, she just lost her momentum as an actress.

40% of the people who watched house of gucci said that they watched it because of Gaga, she was the SOLE reason for how House Of Gucci was nearly interesting at all and she was the frontrunner for best actress in almost all film events except for Oscar (which was shocking af)

no, definitely not. none of the issues had anything to do with gags. it would have been more successful if toad didn't make it into a musical and ruined joker's character to "get back" at the hardcore fans of the film.

gaga is mostly only blamed by bored OGHs, most fans of the film and the straight geepee were fine with her character and enjoyed their relationship aspects, she was the most praised part of the film, i was all over movie review videos and reddit discussions around it, gaga was largely enjoyed except a very few who didn't understand that her inclusion wasn't the reason it became a musical, but she was included BECAUSE toad wanted it to be a musical.

the fans of the og joker wanted it not to be a musical, or at least have a very few musical numbers without overdoing it, and have a bonnie & clyde thing with joker and lee going on the run and blowing **** up.

1 minute ago, ugo said:

Idk wasn't joker without gaga a huge success. Part of it is the plot but also gaga. People don't really care about gaga movies. House of Gucci was really bad, she just lost her momentum as an actress.

also Joker 1 was a huge success because it was traumatizing meanwhile the second installment is just a snoozefest

she was the only acclaimed part of the entire movie lbfr

Gaga wasn't the issue, it was the fact thati t was a musical lol

it would've made no difference, It really would've flopped in the same exact way, the only difference I think maybe being that it maybe would've gotten less publicity? But even then, the first movie was nominated for best picture and Joaquin won best actor, so I really don't see a world where let's say Jesse Buckley plays Harley Quinn in that movie and it ends up any better.

It might be a camp classic one day though (along with house of gucci) and that benefits gar's narrative in the long-term

Edited March 13Mar 13 by Deactivatedos

Actually I think she was, not in a bad way, but I feel like she fit awkwardly into the movie. Of course she did a good acting and singing job, but it was a role too similar to her Lady Gaga persona, and because it was also a musical, it felt forced and it turned straight people and the gp off. (I'm talking success wise, not quality wise.) Probably a more unknown actress would've felt a bit more natural.

Joker: Folie A Deux without Gaga:

24 minutes ago, GAGAISTHEBESTYA said:

also Joker 1 was a huge success because it was traumatizing meanwhile the second installment is just a snoozefest

I mean actors can make a boring plot interesting. Gaga tried too hard even the music was awful.

Absolutely not, nearly all criticism of the movie was aimed at the directing and screenplay. #ThankYouToddPhillips

25 minutes ago, ugo said:

Idk wasn't joker without gaga a huge success. Part of it is the plot but also gaga. People don't really care about gaga movies. House of Gucci was really bad, she just lost her momentum as an actress.

So a sequel to a popular movie is automatically guaranteed to be as successful and acclaimed despite severe plot and pacing issues?

5 minutes ago, Deactivatedos said:

it would've made no difference, It really would've flopped in the same exact way, the only difference I think maybe being that it maybe would've gotten less publicity?

Yeah I thought that as well, Todd probably would have gotten less lashings if she wasn't in it. That's probably the only way things would have gone better for them without her. I mean the Bride just bombed really badly and opened with 7M on a 90M budget but its not as wildly publicised and I don't see people blaming Jesse Buckley or Christian Bale.

Edited March 13Mar 13 by eclipsed

Joker 2's biggest flaw is that it's boring as hell. The concept of a Joker Jazz musical sounds cool on paper, but the execution made me want to go to sleep.

Todd Phillips should've referenced the gold-standard of courthouse/jailhouse musicals: Chicago. That movie is full of dazzle, glamour, and awe. No boring scenes of people sitting alone in cells muttering to themselves

Edited March 13Mar 13 by Reginald

22 minutes ago, ugo said:

I mean actors can make a boring plot interesting. Gaga tried too hard even the music was awful.

how... can boring plot be interesting if it's boring on its own.

13 minutes ago, GAGAISTHEBESTYA said:

how... can boring plot be interesting if it's boring on its own.

I just explained that

Not Monsters blaming the same guy that wrote and directed the first movie (even though it became a major success)

10 minutes ago, 2000_Volts said:

Not Monsters blaming the same guy that wrote and directed the first movie (even though it became a major success)

Because having one success means that your next project is guaranteed to be equally high quality or something? Who else is there to blame but the person who drove the entire vision and execution of the project? Certainly not the actress that he hand-picked who was acknowledged as the most underutilized positive aspect of the film lmao.

My thing is…why was it a musical?

24 minutes ago, 2000_Volts said:

Not Monsters blaming the same guy that wrote and directed the first movie (even though it became a major success)

Well, people hated the writing and direction...

44 minutes ago, GAGAISTHEBESTYA said:

how... can boring plot be interesting if it's boring on its own.

22 minutes ago, 2000_Volts said:

Not Monsters blaming the same guy that wrote and directed the first movie (even though it became a major success)

He's the one who directed and wrote the second movie as well, who else is supposed to be blamed? The only female actress with no involvement in writing/directing that was presented as co-lead but instead she ended up sidelined with a supporting characther

Not to mention your reasoning doesn't make any sense, so all the people who had a successful movie or song automatically makes the following projects successful as well? LOL