If so, it wouldn't surprise me. Personally, one didn't get it with "JOker". It was ok, yes, but a billion dollar movie? Hardly.
To anyone that has seen this, I'd appreciate your take as one is curious.
Thank you in advance.....
It has Lady Gaga in it. The poor man's Madonna. How could it be anything other than awful?
shareFunny you say that - when I read she was cast, plus it was going to be a musical, I started having doubts.
Thanks for the reply.
How ridiculous. Lady Gaga is her own entity. Nothing at all like Madonna. Please. Madonna was the poor man's Marilyn and that is not even close to a compliment.
shareHer own entity? Are you joking? She has never done anything original in her life.
She made terrible 2010s electro-pop garbage and she is an immitation Madonna. She even modelled her career after her.
Lady Gaga = Madonna, if Madonna had talent
shareAudience score and critic score seem to be in agreement. What is more clear sign that the movie isn’t good
share@jacotodd47
The only way to find out is to see it yourself and make up your own mind.
That's the most reliable way to decide.
Also, box office does not equate to quality. It equates to the number of ticket sales a movie generated during its theatrical run.
You could have a movie that is nominated for all the categories at the Academy Awards, but might have only made 20 million dollars at the worldwide box office.
Does this mean the quality of the movie is affected by something outside of its control?
No. It doesn't. It's an irrelevant fact that 99.99% of people don't care about. When people watch a movie, they don't care how much money it made. They care about whether it brings enjoyment to themselves.
If you said what you've just said here to people's faces, questioning how and why the first Joker was a billion dollar movie, they'd just laugh at you.
They'd ask the same things.
Why do you think quality is connected to box office?
Why do you even care about a movie's box office in the first place?
A movie's box office is not connected to its quality.
If you think it does, then you must admit the Transformers and Adam Sandler movies are good, despite the general consensus those movies have of being critically maligned.
Why don't you tell this to someone who disliked the Bay Transformers movies, tell them how much money they made, and see whether it changes their mind.
It won't.
So don't have this idea that whatever the box office is of a movie is equivalent to its quality.
It's not. It never was, and it never will be.
Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to get other opinions.
True, when I read "Joker" exceeded a billion dollars, I did make it a point to check it out.
Well one would think, if a film makes a billion dollars, it is worth a look. There was no other reason for me to check out "JOker". I had no personal interest in it at all.
I don't care about a movie's box office, but you cant help but notice a movie has made a billion dollars. To say this is a rare occasion would be the understatement of the century. I think only around 40-50 movies, in the history of movies, has made over a billion dollars.
"So don't have this idea that whatever the box office is of a money is equivalent to its quality.
It's not. It never was, and it never will be. "
This doesn't make any sense.
I can't say anything about Transformers or any of Adam Sandler's movies because I've never seen either. Did these films earn over a billion dollars?
Yeah evidently box office has nothing to do with quality because I didn't care for "Joker".
That was a typo. I've changed it now. I meant to say "box office is of a movie", but for some reason, it was auto corrected to money when it was typed.
And the 3rd and 4th Transformers movies made over a billion.
But that didn't change the critical reception where they were generally disliked, or changed the opinions of people who already disliked the movies.
There haven't been any Adam Sandler movies that have made over a billion. But they have been popular and usually made about 100 to 500 million at the box office, which is considered a success for comedies, even though they are generally considered to be unfunny and lowbrow by critics and anyone who isn't an Adam Sandler fan.
In other words, the go to movies people use to represent the lowest common denominator.
Same with Transformers.
"And the 3rd and 4th Transformers movies made over a billion.
But that didn't change the critical reception where they were generally disliked, nor changed the opinions of people that didn't already dislike these movies."
Interesting - didn't have a clue.
Same with Sandler and his movies, I've seen not a one, never had any interest.
I see your argument though, box office doesn't mean much. I should add though, in the case of "Joker" - one forgot to mention this yesterday. Incredible critical acclaim. Supposedly a brilliant psychological thriller. An unworldly Joaquin Phoenix performance (so I had read). Plus I was interested in his claims he based his character on Rupert Pupkin - Pupkin was a character in a movie I did enjoy - "The King of Comedy". So actually, there was more inspiration to see "Joker" aside from it passing a billion dollars in revenue.
One would also not think about whether a movie is worth a look if it made a billion dollars, if one looks at the trailer and determines it is not suitable for them.
If one knows movies that were Oscar winners were limited in their theatrical run because the theaters knew there was less chance of them making money than something from a well known franchise or genre, limiting the number of showings that Oscar winner had during its run, one would determine box office is not synonymous with its quality.
If a movie theater had the option to play a Star Wars movie or There Will Be Blood at different showtimes throughout the day, they'd choose the Star Wars movie without a seconds hesitation.
They'd have showtimes for the Star Wars movie at every hour in more than one screen, and show There Will Be Blood possibly twice. Late in the evening and late at night. For about three or four days. A whole week if its lucky. But no longer than that.
That is how theaters work. It is not a level playing field. Theaters actually choose which movies to show, and when and for how long, based on what they know will be popular.
And most films that are Oscar winners are for more of a niche audience. Not for the multiplexes, where the Marvel movies, other superhero movies, Star Wars and the big budget studio movies are shown.
RIght.
I clarified this above - exceeding a billion dollars was a factor in me checking out "Joker" - but in fact, there were other reasons involved.
So, what does it mean? Nothing really. Some recent movies I liked a lot, didn't do all that much at the box office ("Sound of Metal", "Diane", "Rust Creek").
It seems the big box office winners nowadays are comic book movies. Which "Joker" was, however, again, as I alluded previously, there were other factors that interested me.
Ok, I have to go now, nice chatting with you - best wishes.
To say this is a rare occasion would be the understatement of the century. I think only around 40-50 movies, in the history of movies, has made over a billion dollars
Wow, 37 movies made a billion in the 2010s?
Didn't have a clue.
If this in fact is true, then yes, a billion dollars in revenue is not a big deal anymore.
Here's the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
shareI agree. I never listen to other people's opinions. Why would I? Especially if you read what people wrote here they sound ridiculous.
sharei liked it
it's a natural continuation of the first film
It isn't very good. Even if you like musicals, it leaves a lot to be desired in pretty much all categories.
If anyone's interested, I reviewed the movie on my youtube channel. Appreciate any feedback. Trying to improve - https://youtu.be/DtbfTOnq1gE