[Roundy]

Everything you write is pretty accurate, but you just don't quite get across how boring it was. I was actually kind of excited to see exactly how they were going to make this a musical and how Lady Gaga would end up fitting into that. Having the main characters occasionally stop all the momentum (such as there is, given the threadbare plot) to mumble their way through a dusty old standard was not what I was hoping to see. And it just made an already slow movie drag even more.

Say what you will about the first movie (it has a self-important air that it doesn't really earn, it wears its influences on its sleeve), I think it's rarely boring.

And yeah, the courtroom scenes were absolutely ridiculous. After how grounded these movies are in general having the judge allow Arthur to traipse around the courtroom like the southern bird lawyer in Futurama and do nothing but bully a witness took me all the way out of it.

And no, there's nothing on the screen to justify its ridiculous budget, nothing at all. As I said before even Gaga is just wasted. There's basically one big action set piece. 90% of the rest of the movie is the same prison interiors, the same courtroom. They deserve for this to be the bomb that it is. They had no business spending so much on a movie that looks so dull.

And, ok, I hated the ending, and part of what rankled me about it is that Todd Phillips changed the narrative to make a point to the toxic incels that revered Arthur in the first movie. There was never meant to be a Joker 2. The first movie was supposed to stand on its own and it definitely implied that Arthur would become the Joker. He changed the story as a "Take that" to the fans that made the first movie a hit. But couldn't he have gotten his point across without changing the intended story? How am I, who came into these movies as a fan of the character first and foremost, supposed to react to the fact that this was never the character I came to see, and that the only reason for this is that Phillips felt he needed to make a political point?

Sorry, WB, swing and a miss.

[Rushy]

I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not going to "review" it, but it sounds like a hit piece. The culmination of the movie industry's hatred of the "alt-right". The movie was created as an inverse to "you get what you deserve" and clearly planned to embarrass the audience. It sounds like it's supposed to make you mad/sad that you even bothered watching it.

The Boys is also of a similar tone, though somehow much of the audience didn't notice this until the 4th season. It's also probably not a coincidence that both of them include rape scenes of a male lead.

He took a risk and made the movie he wanted to make rather than take the safe route.

In my opinion, what he did was taking the safe route for his career. Producing a movie that could be enjoyed by the "wrong" political groups is probably more damaging to his career than a film that would, on paper, lose a lot of money. The movie industry's motivations of networking and nepotism transcends a simple "make lots of money" modus operandi.

[honk]

There's nothing alt-right or inherently politically conservative about this Joker or these movies. If you'll remember, the big controversy before the first one came out was that the character would turn into an incel hero and provoke similar violence - and I do still strongly suspect that the movie made a last-minute swerve and cut a scene of Arthur murdering Sophie to avoid that implication. For a sequel, with Joker being in a relationship with Harley, there'd be no fear of incels claiming him as one of their own, and there'd be nothing all that controversial about just another anti-hero-led crime movie. And if there were a political agenda behind this movie, I doubt that the people responsible would also want to drag Harley, a beloved character whose popularity has exploded in recent years and has become a feminist capeshit icon to her fans, down with Joker with this two-faced, sexist portrayal of her. This is by no means a politically progressive movie.

[Shane]

not a movie but capeshit: the penguin is pretty good. 

[Rushy]

There's nothing alt-right or inherently politically conservative about this Joker or these movies. If you'll remember, the big controversy before the first one came out was that the character would turn into an incel hero and provoke similar violence - and I do still strongly suspect that the movie made a last-minute swerve and cut a scene of Arthur murdering Sophie to avoid that implication. For a sequel, with Joker being in a relationship with Harley, there'd be no fear of incels claiming him as one of their own, and there'd be nothing all that controversial about just another anti-hero-led crime movie. And if there were a political agenda behind this movie, I doubt that the people responsible would also want to drag Harley, a beloved character whose popularity has exploded in recent years and has become a feminist capeshit icon to her fans, down with Joker with this two-faced, sexist portrayal of her. This is by no means a politically progressive movie.

The movie doesn't have to contain overt political themes in order to be politically motivated. Memes and themes of the original Joker movie were lauded on social media by an audience that the movie industry actively disdains. The sequel is the director's apology for accidentally pleasing the wrong crowd.

[honk]

The politics of the people celebrating Joker may well have played a role in Phillips's decision to make this movie, but to extend that sentiment towards Hollywood as a whole, as if this was meant to somehow appease them, is a big stretch. I'll be the first to argue that the film industry has plenty of agendas and biases that get in the way of the supposed bottom line, but blowing close to two hundred million dollars on turbofucking a billion-dollar franchise, just because they didn't like how a bunch of alt-right types embraced the first movie? That's very far-fetched. Besides, if they regretted making Joker, why would they celebrate the movie months later by nominating it for a bunch of Oscars and letting it win two? It's their awards show, and they can award or snub any movie they like.

[Rushy]

The politics of the people celebrating Joker may well have played a role in Phillips's decision to make this movie, but to extend that sentiment towards Hollywood as a whole, as if this was meant to somehow appease them, is a big stretch. I'll be the first to argue that the film industry has plenty of agendas and biases that get in the way of the supposed bottom line, but blowing close to two hundred million dollars on turbofucking a billion-dollar franchise, just because they didn't how a bunch of alt-right types embraced the first movie? That's very far-fetched. Besides, if they regretted making Joker, why would they celebrate the movie months later by nominating it for a bunch of Oscars and letting it win two? It's their awards show, and they can award or snub any movie they like.

I don't think a few months was enough time for the effects of the movie's audience to reach the right ears. I also highly doubt the movie actually cost anyone two hundred million dollars or did in fact lose money at all, but that's beside the point.

It probably wasn't intentional to make the movie as bad as it sounds. However, I do still believe it was fully intentional to release what's effectively a self-destruct mechanism on this IP. It also ensures you can quite easily mock anyone who liked this particular Joker. I also think it did do serious damage to the Joker IP overall, but he's only a decade away from public domain, so they probably don't care as much as they otherwise would.

[honk]

Joker was embraced by chuds immediately upon its release, leading to articles like this being written just a few weeks later. If Hollywood had been as worried by the movie's reception by the "wrong" people as you say, they had plenty of warning and plenty of time to change course before the Oscars. You might actually be right about the budget being fudged, as, like I said, I can't imagine how this movie with its whopping two locations cost triple what the first one did, but even if we suppose that the studio didn't lose money with this, deliberately trying to "self-destruct" a billion-dollar franchise out of spite is a weird step for a group of Hollywood producers, as opposed to one frustrated auteur.

I'm reminded of a dream I had some months ago where the MCU ended abruptly with an ugly, poorly-animated CGI short where a grotesque, giant Trump appeared on a beach and set off a huge explosion, destroying the world and killing everyone. This short was extremely controversial and was interpreted as being a spiteful take-that statement to the world at large because of the increasing likelihood of Trump being reelected president. It was extremely funny and I woke up laughing.