^This raises a lot of questions.
It has a lot of problems. It tries to continue a story that already feels complete, its musical numbers are distracting and, of course, it's a Batman movie without Batman. The worst problem, in my opinion, is that it's so dark and gritty to the point it offers the audience no characters to root for. Arthur doesn't care whether he lives or dies, so why should I care?
Joker has entered the chat
It was okay. I liked the music, acting and cinematography, but I wish it took greater influence from classic movie musicals and actually committed to being a musical.
Lots of people blame the failure of Folie A Deux on being a musical, but quite a few musicals have been successful in recent years, like The Greatest Showman, Wonka and Mean Girls 2024, so personally, I can't blame WB for wanting to catch that particular lightning in a bottle.
The problem isn't the concept, but rather its execution. The musical elements interfere with the story rather than helping it move forward. Also, what was the point of casting Lady Gaga if you're gonna make her play second-fiddle to Joaquin Phoenix, who can't even sing to save his life?
I agree. I get what Phillips was going for, but it wasn't done well.
Garbage. I was hanging on for most of it, wasn't awesome but could've been worse, but that ending was 70's level bad
Exactly. Just because you understand what a creator is trying to do doesn't mean you like it. Ideas are cheap. It's the execution of those ideas what makes them meaningful. An expert creator can turn a bad idea into a New York Times bestseller, while a novice creator can turn a good idea into a steaming pile of garbage.
The blame-throwing over at Warner Bros Discovery has begun and the failure of this movie is getting thrown at Phillips' shoulders. Because fandoms gonna fandom, people are "celebrating" the failure of Folie A Deux, dancing over this movie's grave and even talking crap about Phillips simply because he got full creative control over this movie. Phillips and James Gunn had already clarified that DC Studios didn't get involved in the production of FAD. Gunn offered a few notes to Phillips, but that's it.
Just so you know, people often talk about how studio executives need to trust creators in making movies. That's exactly what WBD did and look what happened. Does that mean WBD will enforce a higher level of corporate control over its franchises? Is that really the kind of filmmaking we want?
Some people even believe Phillips developed such a big ego that he intentionally screwed up his own movie just to stick it to WB, but I find that hard to believe. Why would Phillips screw up a movie that lots of people worked really hard to make? Better yet, why would he screw up a positive relationship he had with a studio that helped him make movies that earned over $2.5B at the global box office? It doesn't make sense.
I don't understand are so obsessed with mocking failure like this. Yeah, I hate FAD but I don't wish any ill fortune on the people who made this movie. I don't hate Phillips or his crew for making FAD. I just hate that they made a bad movie. That's it. Even so, I can't help but resent FAD for further tarnishing DC's reputation as a cinematic brand and putting even more pressure on Superman 2025 to put DC back on track. FAD is the kind of failure that comic book Joker would be proud of.
Ultimately, the healthiest reaction we can have towards FAD is that we survived it and we can put it to rest and move on with our lives.
Joker is dead. Long live whatever comes next.
I don't know if he's dead looks definitely dying though
^Nobody tell him how the movie ends.
What do you think?