Joker 4K UHD (2019)

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by thediscman

Your argument is convoluted. Everyone knew they were duds beforehand. Besides, both franchises had been making iffy movies for years prior to their release.

The point is people don't go to the theaters like they used to. There are a multitude of other entertainment options that are easier and much cheaper and require less of a commitment of your time.

Generally:

• A bad movie with name recognition = poor box office.
• A good movie without name recognition = poor box office.
• Joker, a great movie with name recognition, plus controversy, plus strong word of mouth, plus strong rewatachability (for some people) = Blockbuster.

And I hope it does lead to more character driven movies that are lower budget and can therefore take more thematic risks - which was the original point of this thread of the conversation.

Look at Dredd. One of my favorite comic book movies of all time bombed despite (IMHO) being a great movie because of no name recognition except for the disastrous Stallone movie.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by supersix4

How'd that work out for JL or Dark phoenix

I'm unsure what you're arguing against, because those films' poor b.o. performance prove his point. The people who went to see JL and Dark Phoenix went because of the films' name recognition. Those films failed at the b.o. because they failed at the second part of his argument:

>> Name recognition will get bums in the seats. A movie that is good will get word of mouth and repeat viewings.

Those films had bad word of mouth, so lots of people stayed away; hence, their b.o. failure. (Also, general audience fatigue with X-Men, displeasure with the DCEU, etc.)

The point is, then, that a movie with a built-in attraction like JOKER will attract a certain set of people to go see it, but their positive word of mouth will inspire other sets of people to go see it (along with even MORE free publicity from news outlets reporting on its controversial nature and so forth).

I do hope WB does NOT make a sequel to this film. I'm sure they will throw a boatload of dough at Phillips and Phoenix. The question is how much of a prostitute they are. Phoenix doesn't strike me as a money *****, but he could relish being accepted by audiences with this role in the same way Johnny Depp relished finally being accepted by playing Jack Sparrow.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Archivy

I'm unsure what you're arguing against, because those films' poor b.o. performance prove his point. The people who went to see JL and Dark Phoenix went because of the films' name recognition. Those films failed at the b.o. because they failed at the second part of his argument:

>> Name recognition will get bums in the seats. A movie that is good will get word of mouth and repeat viewings.

Those films had bad word of mouth, so lots of people stayed away; hence, their b.o. failure. (Also, general audience fatigue with X-Men, displeasure with the DCEU, etc.)

The point is, then, that a movie with a built-in attraction like JOKER will attract a certain set of people to go see it, but their positive word of mouth will inspire other sets of people to go see it (along with even MORE free publicity from news outlets reporting on its controversial nature and so forth).

I do hope WB does NOT make a sequel to this film. I'm sure they will throw a boatload of dough at Phillips and Phoenix. The question is how much of a prostitute they are. Phoenix doesn't strike me as a money *****, but he could relish being accepted by audiences with this role in the same way Johnny Depp relished finally being accepted by playing Jack Sparrow.

They don't have to make a sequel.
Two-Face
Riddler
Lex Luther
And many others are compelling villains on their own that (IMHO) have enough back story to hold a movie without Batman or Superman showing up.

[thediscman]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

They don't have to make a sequel.
Two-Face
Riddler
Lex Luther
And many others are compelling villains on their own that (IMHO) have enough back story to hold a movie with Batman or Superman showing up.

The real problem they're going to have is that anything they make that's along the lines of "Joker" (sequel or other origin villain story) is going to be an obvious cash-grab. And "Joker" is so well done and compelling that it's a hard act to follow.

I also think that the one of "Joker"'s main strengths is that it's a fully real world story. The fact that no one has powers or is super smart or super rich (with gadgets) or super lucky (bullets miss them all the time) means you have to take what's happening on screen very seriously.

It won't be a simple thing to replicate this success.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by thediscman

The real problem they're going to have is that anything they make that's along the lines of "Joker" (sequel or other origin villain story) is going to be an obvious cash-grab. And "Joker" is so well done and compelling that it's a hard act to follow.

I also think that the one of "Joker"'s main strengths is that it's a fully real world story. The fact that no one has powers or is super smart or super rich (with gadgets) or super lucky (bullets miss them all the time) means you have to take what's happening on screen very seriously.

It won't be a simple thing to replicate this success.

It will be difficult but the right director, Fincher, Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, etc. Basically, a director with a distinctive visual style and story telling would make for great cinema if done right.

[thediscman]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

It will be difficult but the right director, Fincher, Aronofsky, Wes Anderson, etc. Basically, a director with a distinctive visual style and story telling would make for great cinema if done right.

That's a good point. On the other hand, I was looking through some of the audience reviews on RT and there were only two camps: "masterpiece" and "boring/slow". If people think "Joker" was slow, they'll hate the kind of film you're describing, especially given that it'll feature a lesser known villain.

Whether there's a hero in the films or not, the less "super" it is, the more I'll be able to get into it - as with "Joker". For me, the appeal of movies where people who can survive pretty much anything have endless CGI fights is wearing thin.

Though some of those films have been good, there's just been so many of them.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by thediscman

That's a good point. On the other hand, I was looking through some of the audience reviews on RT and there were only two camps: "masterpiece" and "boring/slow". If people think "Joker" was slow, they'll hate the kind of film you're describing, especially given that it'll feature a lesser known villain.

Whether there's a hero in the films or not, the less "super" it is, the more I'll be able to get into it - as with "Joker". For me, the appeal of movies where people who can survive pretty much anything have endless CGI fights is wearing thin.

Though some of those films have been good, there's just been so many of them.

I like both types of movies. Low stakes drama and end of the world spectacle. All I ask is that I give a **** about the characters.

[thediscman]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I like both types of movies. Low stakes drama and end of the world spectacle. All I ask is that I give a **** about the characters.

Fair enough.

[Archivy]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

They don't have to make a sequel.
Two-Face
Riddler
Lex Luther
And many others are compelling villains on their own that (IMHO) have enough back story to hold a movie without Batman or Superman showing up.

I guess I like the idea of a Lex Luther film, but I don't see it being financially feasible. It doesn't have the "name recognition" quotient discussed earlier. You would have a very thin slice of fan geeks who would go see it based on it being a Lex Luthor film (VERY thin), and because of that, WB would be relying almost exclusively on word of mouth for the film to be a success. That's unless you put Superman in the film, and then almost by default you're upping the budget and mis-positioning the film from a marketing perspective, imo. (That is, you're no longer following in JOKER's footsteps).

Also, what's the thematic angle with a Luthor film? JOKER works because not only is it the first complete origin story of that particular character on film, but it's a roman-a-clef for a real life social problem that we're currently tackling -- mass shootings and understanding the people behind them.

Again, what's the real life angle to Lex Luthor? I guess you can make him out to be a stand-in for a Trump type, a guy who thinks he's a genius and resorts to crime to get ahead, etc. etc. Use the character to make a statement about real life plutocrats, rich white privilege...something along those lines.

That's really cutting it close, though. Luthor inherently has less box office appeal if for no other reason than he LOOKS like just another bald white guy, and it's not as obvious what the thematic point of the film would be. In vague terms, I do think it'd be intriguing to use the character to make the first political thriller comic book film. It would be a much tougher film to market than JOKER. I don't really see the box office potential.

One of the lessons I hope WB is taking away from JOKER's success is that the film is actually ABOUT SOMETHING substantive. Any future attempts to make similar films should also actually be about something. Leave the meaningless comic book films to Marvel.

[MooneyRara]

Let's get back on topic please.

This is the Joker 4K release thread.

[ek79]

Originally Posted by King Crimson

saved to the memes folder, thank you sir.

Same here.

[ek79]

Originally Posted by loverblue

Is this really confirmed?

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by ek79

Is this really confirmed?

No, it's a fan mockup based on promotional material from the film.

[videopat]

I'm seeing the release date is Dec. 17, which would make it less than 3 months since theatrical opening, which seems pretty rare. If true, would be awesome to have this in time for Christmas.

[Chaotic]

Sony did the same with Venom and WB did for Pan for christmas and Annabelle Creation (for Halloween)

[videopat]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Sony did the same with Venom and WB did for Pan for christmas and Annabelle Creation (for Halloween)

VENOM last year is a great example, and it makes sense WB would want this out in time for the holidays. Looks like December is gonna be a wallet-buster

[XavierTheaterPotato]

Send in the Clowns for Christmas! Day one from me regardless, It'll put a Smile on my face!

[gates70]

Up for PO on Amazon.ca

[Ricky G]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Here's hoping the lesson WB takes away is to make more serious movies that are low on effects and high on drama rather than pressing ahead with a sequel.

I would agree with you, but let's be honest. The only way WB knows how comprehend your statement is as follows:

"Serious" "high drama"= Make them DARKER

[Ricky G]

Originally Posted by brownstones19

I like the steel book art, De Niro on there is still odd since the movie is like 97% Phoenix, and most other posters just say Joaquin Phoenix. But I'm hoping to see if there will be any other exclusives

He's the Sharon Tate/ Margot Robbie of this film lol.

He is laced throughout, should help garner intrigue... I get it.