news ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ Set to Lose Up to $200 Million After Box Office Flop

[Movie Info]

Joker: Folie à Deux, the highly anticipated sequel to 2019’s smash hit Joker, is shaping up to be a box office disaster. After two weeks, the film has grossed only $51.5 million domestically and $165 million globally, a far cry from the original’s massive $1.08 billion haul.

With a production cost of $200 million and another $100 million spent on marketing, insiders estimate that Folie à Deux could lose between $150 million and $200 million by the end of its theatrical run. The film’s worldwide earnings are projected to max out at around $215 million.

Critics and audiences didn’t connect with the film’s musical approach, leading to a dismal 33% score on Rotten Tomatoes and a rare "D" CinemaScore. Analysts believe the musical numbers and unconventional tone alienated the DC fanbase that embraced the gritty, Scorsese-inspired original.

Warner Bros. still hopes to recoup some losses when the film lands on home entertainment platforms on October 29. However, this flop joins a growing list of superhero sequels, like Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom and The Marvels, that have failed to replicate their billion-dollar predecessors in a post-pandemic box office environment.

One rival studio executive noted that the once-guaranteed superhero appeal isn’t enough anymore, saying, “Tolerance for films that are just OK doesn’t cut it.”

Source: https://variety.com/2024/film/news/...ner-bros-millions-box-office-flop-1236176479/

 

[Harsh World]

Everything is shouting "Don't watch this movie," but it only makes me want to watch it more.

The article states that it has a 33% score on Rotten Tomatoes and a "D" on CinemaScore, but it left out that it has a pretty mid-tier 5.3/10 rating on IMDb with about 15 times more ratings and reviews than it has on Rotten Tomatoes.

I kind of understand the fuss about the Joker not being the traditional Joker from the comics, and can get over that.

The first movie was great, but perhaps it should've been called something else. This is because it was so unrelated to Batman that I couldn't tell if merging the two, Batman and this Joker, that it would even make any sense. This is because we already have a pretty good history of the Joker character in previous Batman movies, and of course, the comics.

I think that the producers tried to capitalize on the Joker name for box-office numbers in the first one, and they tried to outdo themselves in this one, but the Joker character strays so far that it's no longer the Joker and that it's just Arthur Fleck.

I'm unsure how "Fleck" would do financially as a standalone character in his own movie, but that should've been a consideration from the start. I believe the audience would still appreciate Fleck and a sequel would have done better. I'm basing this theory on Richard Gadd's story in Baby Reindeer as you can see the pain and misery that some men have to suffer through, which Fleck did, and how they end up handling it.

In the first Joker, as I'm sure we all know, Fleck takes his anger out on a nighttime TV host—was Batman supposed to prevent that or capture him? It just doesn't make sense to be in the Batman series, but Arthur Fleck still makes for a good story as a standalone character.

 

[1stop]

The problem with this movie was that the music just didn’t fit the theme. People appreciated the rawness of Joker and didn't appreciate the song and dance of the sequel. I have seen a lot of negative reviews online with this film and that's a minus. It contributes greatly to its poor performance.

 

[ActionAce]

It would have been better for Folie a Deux to remain faithful to their franchise. I understand that it might be a great challenge to find a middle ground between trying new concepts and delivering the original content. I think a survey before film production would be the best approach. This will lay to rest the negativity and the movie will definitely resonate with the viewers.