JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX - 6 Reasons The Sequel Flopped (And Todd Phillips' Biggest Mistakes)

JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX - 6 Reasons The Sequel Flopped (And Todd Phillips' Biggest Mistakes)

Joker: Folie à Deux is shaping up to be one of the biggest critical and commercial flops of 2024, but where did it all go wrong for the sequel? We're taking an in-depth look at the film's biggest missteps.

Feature Opinion
By JoshWilding - Oct 07, 2024 01:10 PM EST
Filed Under: Joker

While reviews out of last month's Venice Film Festival were mixed, Joker: Folie à Deux only ended up being five or six percentage points behind 2019's Joker on Rotten Tomatoes. However, things changed when other critics - and fans - got to watch the movie last week. 

It soon became clear this was no fan-pleasing follow-up and that the negative word-of-mouth from Monday's IMAX screenings would have a negative impact on box office takings. Now, the sequel to a $1 billion Oscar-winning hit is a critical and commercial flop. 

Where did it all go wrong? Looking beyond just the bad reviews, there were some fundamental issues with Joker: Folie à Deux before its release and, crucially, with the movie itself. It's those that doomed the pretentiously titled sequel and, in this feature, we explain why. 

To read more about the movie's failings, click on the "Next"/"View List" buttons below. 
 

6. It's A BAD Musical

GTLx-LFp-Xw-AAzp-VK

When we first learned of plans for Joker: Folie à Deux to be a "jukebox musical," it definitely raised a few eyebrows. However, the notion of exploring The Joker and Harley Quinn's twisted romance in Arkham through song did have a certain appeal. 

The problem here, though, is that it's just a bad musical. Joaquin Phoenix isn't exactly a joy to listen to, while Lady Gaga was clearly told to restrain herself for the sake of realism, leaving us with two average singers performing a series of bland, largely forgettable show tunes.

It's never a good sign when you watch a musical and one of the leads starting to sing leaves the person watching with a sense of dread in their stomach. Joker: Folie à Deux's music numbers really are that bad. The choreography and sets are equally unimpressive.
 

5. The Movie Has Nothing New To Say

GTLx-No4-WEAAIBo-L

Love or hate Joker: Folie à Deux, it's hard to deny that it's a hollow movie with almost nothing new to say. The first movie was a fascinating examination of a disturbed man's descent into full-blown madness but what do we get here?

An all-too-familiar story about a superfan falling for a psychopath, a feeble courtroom drama about whether "Arthur Fleck" and "Joker" are two separate personas, and a reminder that the world is terrible and everyone in it is awful. 

It's all surface level and while some have tried to sell the sequel as telling a complex story about how idolizing someone like Joker can backfire, but if that is what the filmmakers were going for...well, they didn't do a good enough job.
 

4. A Sequel Wasn't Wanted Or Needed

GTLwr5-HWo-AAp74w

Following the release of Joker, much was said about a possible sequel. Perhaps a follow-up could revolve around an unhinged, vengeful Bruce Wayne hunting down Arthur Fleck? Todd Phillips said it wouldn't happen and Joaquin Phoenix has never made a sequel, so that was that.

Until it wasn't. While film fans too often say certain movies don't "need" a sequel, Joker was the perfect example of a feature which should have been left well alone. It was a perfect standalone tale and, beyond the silly fan theories, no one truly wanted a second instalment. 

That goes a long way in explaining why, beyond the bad reviews and poor word-of-mouth, Joker: Folie à Deux has failed. People need a good reason to head to the theater these days and this movie never offered a compelling argument. 
 

3. A Terrible Ending

GTLx-XPCXEAAJQ9-I

It's never a good idea to send moviegoers home with a bad taste in their mouths, but that's exactly what Joker: Folie à Deux does. In the closing moments, Arthur Fleck is sent back to Arkham and stabbed to death by a random inmate who then carves a smile across his face. 

The idea is that they could be The Joker, but the first movie already established that when we saw how Arthur's actions influenced Gotham City's poorest, angriest citizens. It's rehashing the same message, albeit in a heavy-handed, borderline cringe-worthy, fashion.

Rumour has it an earlier cut featured Lee killing Arthur; while that too would have divided opinions, it at least makes more sense for "Harley Quinn" to dispatch Joker, taking his message and making it entirely her own as someone who will gleefully cause chaos in Gotham.
 

2. "Joker" Is Meaningless

GTLx-Tu-IW4-AAX0-Nt

Even before Joker was released in 2019, it was clear the movie wasn't exactly comic book accurate. Todd Phillips never set out to adapt the source material and instead used them as a basis for a story which put a grounded and compelling spin on the Clown Prince of Crime. 

While there are those who will always idolise a villain, most left Joker all too aware that Arthur Fleck was no hero. However, Joaquin Phoenix's Joker added an exciting new version of the character to DC canon and he's subsequently become iconic. 

Telling those fans that this "Joker" was just some nut and a one-pump chump makes the character worthless. Even for a comic book movie like this, getting fanboys on side is a must. Instead, they wholly rejected the sequel on social media and out in the world, killing word-of-mouth.  
 

1. It's A Vanity Project

GTLwr48-Xc-AARRn-Z

Joker was reportedly made for around $70 million. In contrast, Joker: Folie à Deux cost a massive $200 million before marketing, with at least a quarter of that going to Todd Phillips, Joaquin Phoenix, and Lady Gaga. So, yeah, they cashed in big time. 

When all is said and done, the movie was a vanity project for Phillips and Phoenix. They once discussed taking Joker to Broadway; instead of doing that, they convinced Warner Bros. Discovery to pay them a huge amount of money to lark about on the set of a big screen continuation.

For Phillips, this was also an opportunity to hit back at those who believed he made a movie in 2019 for incels. So insecure is the filmmaker that much of Joker: Folie à Deux is devoted to making Arthur as pathetic as possible and driving home the fact he's not a good person. No sh*t!
 

JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX Opens Even Lower Than MORBIUS With A Laughable $37.8 Million Weekend
Related:

JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX Opens Even Lower Than MORBIUS With A Laughable $37.8 Million Weekend

JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX - Do Lip-Read Videos From Venice Premiere Catch Joaquin Phoenix Bashing The Movie?
Recommended For You:

JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX - Do Lip-Read Videos From Venice Premiere Catch Joaquin Phoenix Bashing The Movie?

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Malatrova15
Malatrova15 - 10/7/2024, 1:12 PM
But DC fas love anal blasted heroes !
GeneralZod
GeneralZod - 10/7/2024, 1:12 PM
7. It wasn't The Batman.
EZBeast
EZBeast - 10/7/2024, 1:15 PM
Good [frick]ing lord, Josh, I left for a few days and come back to nothing but spam articles of this film. I have no doubt this film is bad but wtf is with all these hate boner articles?
CreateNowSlpL8r
CreateNowSlpL8r - 10/7/2024, 1:20 PM
Considering this is elseworlds. They could have used this as a rise of Joker story where he takes over the underworld of Gotham and who would be the first to resist him. The issue with the movie is they revert Arthur back and ignore his arc in the first movie. We dont really get to see the fruits of Arthur becoming who he is meant to be. They rob us of that.
TheNewYorker
TheNewYorker - 10/7/2024, 1:21 PM
All the songs sucked. Author became more pathetic than in the first movie. Pointless sequel with a rage inducing ending.

I’m happy it’ll go down as one of the absolute worst “comic book movies” ever!
Vigor
Vigor - 10/7/2024, 1:21 PM
I haven't seen the movie. But everytime the ending is explained, I love it more and more
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 10/7/2024, 1:31 PM
@Vigor - don’t love it but I am ok with it tbh.

It’s an idea that’s been played with it before and seems to fit one of the themes or notions of the film.
mountainman
mountainman - 10/7/2024, 1:28 PM
Todd Phillips sure showed all those Chuds who liked the first movie what’s up! Suck it losers! This is what winning looks like!
Matchesz
Matchesz - 10/7/2024, 1:28 PM
I read that WB decided against test screenings. Hopefully they’ll learn.
MCUKnight11
MCUKnight11 - 10/7/2024, 1:37 PM
Because nobody asked for a sequel.
Because musicals are hard to sell.
Because it spits in the face of the audience.
User Comment Image
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 10/7/2024, 2:02 PM
@MCUKnight11 - people apparently walking out once they realized it was a musical was funny.

It’s such a niche genre that it was a bad idea to give them so much money to make it

I can see it being higher then something like La La Land which was made on a 30 million budget due to the period 80’s setting to an extent but still nowhere near 200 million (most of which went to the leads &. Phillips who should have reduced their asking rate for this).
Forthas
Forthas - 10/7/2024, 1:42 PM
Good list! the only thing I would add is that it teaeses Batman villains, the Waynes and of course Gotham city but leaves out the one person associated with all of those things. Batman!
HashTagSwagg
HashTagSwagg - 10/7/2024, 1:48 PM
Hot take: Misery porn without any resolution or payoff is just misery porn and this part might be a shock for some to hear this but most normal human people shockingly don't want to pay money just to feel miserable for 2 hours.
User Comment Image
Malatrova15
Malatrova15 - 10/7/2024, 2:06 PM
@HashTagSwagg - misery porn its oke when its against chuds. so ill give it a pass
harryba11zack
harryba11zack - 10/7/2024, 1:55 PM
it was a bummer
User Comment Image
TheVisionary25
TheVisionary25 - 10/7/2024, 1:59 PM
Look , I haven’t seen the movie yet and probably won’t for atleast awhile but these complaints about this was an unnecessary or unneeded sequel don’t work for me…

If the movie looked appealing to people then they would go see it , period.

Also I find it hilarious that people who are calling this surface level don’t think that about the first one because it was also that imo aswell as being heavy handed…

The story might have been fresh & new for the genre but pretty much tackled well worn themes of mental health & the class system in a very simplistic manner that had been done stronger elsewhere.

It’s due to the cinematography , music and especially Phoenix’s performance that the first was elevated to an extent (still was a C for me).

User Comment Image
TheVandalore
TheVandalore - 10/7/2024, 2:01 PM
The whole movie was what should have been condensed down to the first act of the film, not the entire film.

The Joker is in prison, meets Lee, goes on trial and then the bomb goes off and his radicalized gang frontend by Lee takes him on a wild journey through the newly liberated and depraved underground of Gotham he created after being arrested and locked up.

It's THEN, when faced with the reality of what he has created that he ultimately decides to either embrace Joker or to run away from the overwhelming entity that he accidentally created.

And I wouldn't have had the guard kill his skinny friend who idolized him, I'd have made him the one who kills Arthur after Arthur runs from the Joker gang and disappointed him, and he becomes the actual Joker painting his face using Arthurs blood.

But I think Toad Phillips knew fans wanted something fun and crazy like that, and refused to give us a proper follow up.
TheVandalore
TheVandalore - 10/7/2024, 2:06 PM
I think it even would have been a more appropriate parallel to have the rabid toxic love for JOKER by his followers being the very thing that turns him away from the Joker, being closer to Todd's gripe of the fan base twisting the message of the actions of the first film into something toxic and morbid. Missed opportunity to take the material seriously.
ObserverIO
ObserverIO - 10/7/2024, 3:30 PM
@TheVandalore - It felt like nothing happened until that last moment. This is basically 2-3 boring assed hours with a few mediocre Gaga songs and then that scene happens which is basically just an unnecessary after-credits stinger for the first movie. That's it.
Fogs
Fogs - 10/7/2024, 2:29 PM
Hot take: the 1st Joker also isn't all that.

Good but not great.
CAPTAINPINKEYE
CAPTAINPINKEYE - 10/7/2024, 2:34 PM
1. Didn’t need a sequel
2. Didn’t need a sequel
3. Didn’t need a sequel
4. Didn’t n……you get where I’m going with this.
SpiderBloke2099
SpiderBloke2099 - 10/7/2024, 2:37 PM
It's right about now, I actually want WB to go under for so thoroughly managing to royally eff up DC and their character for the past 25 years if not longer.

And, yes, I realise that includes the 4 DC movies* I actually like, but they've made so many damn mistakes...


*Dark Knight trilogy and Wonder Woman. Only counting live-action movies as well, or it'd be 5 with the Lego Batman Movie.
thobie1
thobie1 - 10/7/2024, 3:41 PM
Spoiler alert for giving away the ending?

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder