Well, it’s safe to say that Joker 2 (no I am not using the full French title) is the biggest disaster this year. And this is a year with Megalopolis and all of its debacles. From the 200 million-dollar price tag to the dismissive utilization of musical numbers by Todd Philips, and the film being hated by everyone, nothing has gone right with it. While it can be enjoyable to find humor in such a debacle, I feel that the failure of this film presents an interesting point regarding the current mindset of Hollywood and its flaws in terms of what they put their money into and why they have encountered many issues as of late.
Simply put, studios have burnt out audiences on the prospect of comic book films. Spending over a decade in cruise control has made studios complacent and audiences wanting more. Unless you make something ambitious like The Batman or irreverent like Deadpool & Wolverine, audiences won’t flock to the basic superhero blockbuster. Marvel has released more content in the past few years than in the first decade of their existence and most of it has felt rushed. DC is currently in reboot mode and needs to strike hot if they want to get general audiences back. At this point, you need to make something special or interesting to get audiences to watch your film. Not only because of the oversaturation but because audiences are pickier about what they go see both because of the cost of going to a film and how studios trained them to expect to see said films on streaming soon after their theatrical run. While Joker 2 is something different, the aspect of burnout from superhero films likely didn’t help it and it needed to impress to succeed at this point. The negative word of mouth about its quality sank its chances before it even got off the ground.
This oversaturation doesn’t just apply to superhero films, however, but branded films in general. Over the past decade, Hollywood has focused all its eggs into the baskets of sequels, reboots, and recognizable properties. It’s gotten to the point that Hasbro announced a View-Finder film. Does it make sense? Well, to the executives reading off a list of recognizable brands, sure. But for the audiences, many are just tired of studios giving re-heated leftovers of films that were made years ago. There are only so many films one can see in a year and if all studios are offering is stuff that is the same as before, they are less likely to be incentivized to go unless it is really good. Even then, genuinely good films following recognizable works that feel more earnest like Transformers One or Furiosa end up being overlooked due to the oversaturation problem and the lack of audience interest in going to the movies all the time. It doesn’t help that studios have prioritized rushing out projects believing that the brand can sell it resulting in most films feeling hollow and forgettable. So not only do studios over-expose their franchises and brands, but they don’t put in the effort most of the time to make something worthwhile to alleviate the audience fatigue. It results in continued apathy and a lack of overall interest in most films as a result.
There’s also the point that many times, audiences don’t want a sequel to some films. They usually tend to exist because studios believe they can replicate the success the first one brought. Joker made over a billion, yes, but not only was that 5 years ago during a much different environment for theatrical releases, but the way it presented itself was also more driven by its isolated appeal. It’s apparent that Warner Bros only greenlit a sequel because of the success of the original and not because Philips came to them with a killer idea. Not to mention that it still feels like Philips was never interested in a sequel even while making it. He was heavily against the idea initially and the film made feels intended to strike back at those who asked for it both in the corporate and public areas. The way the film presents its themes and story feels like a counterargument to the fandom of the first and those who invested themselves in the story of Arthur Fleck. It feels like a film made out of frustration since Philips didn’t seem to get the career boost he wanted after the first Joker and had to come back here as a result.
The fact that this spent over 200 million, most of which went to the director and two leads, while other films have cost much less while providing more is also ridiculous. At least with some blockbusters, the fundamental patchwork of the production pipeline means that studios tend to spend more to improvise or reshoot things as the film is made. Joker 2 is just a straightforward film and didn’t need all that money to look good. Good filmmaking isn’t always derived from money since plenty of great works came from shoestring budgets. The fact that studios tend to default to spending so much feels more wasteful than necessary. At this point, they rely on big box office numbers to make up for their poor financial decision-making. Plus, maybe we don’t need to pay actors and directors millions each. I’m not saying they aren’t worth a good amount of money, but just not huge chunks of the budget. I remember going to see the recent Planet of the Apes film which had a relatively unknown cast. I was far more invested in these performers than I would have been if they were played by actors who had name recognition since I probably would only see the actors and not the characters. A balance between recognizable stars and lesser-known actors could help. Or at the very least, don’t rely on star power to the point that you are pouring out too much of your resources for them when it’s not a guarantee that they alone will bring audiences in. The fact that Lady Gaga is in this film indicates that WB expected her fanbase to cover some of the cost and it didn’t seem to work.
So, what can we learn from this film’s failure? Well, Hollywood needs to realize that making sequels or reboots to everything isn’t a quick path to success. The brands they have relied on have been overexposed and audiences aren’t as willing to go see something just because they recognize a character. Studios should also not spend so much since most big studio films tend to be budgeted in a way that demands at least half a billion for success. Films should also not be made out of obligation since a passionless work or a work made out of aggressive passion doesn’t usually end well. At the end of the day, I feel that the way things turned out for this film is a microcosm of the current state of Hollywood. Studios have focused only on franchises and sequels without many genuine risks under the belief that the revenue will keep pointing up. However, because of many circumstances, many recent films and franchises have been underperforming, and we will likely see a lot of big shifts within the industry as a result. Sequels like this won’t always fail, but it’s a sign that relying on them isn’t sustainable and studios should try more earnest and different types of films instead of replaying the same tired hits. I know that Joker was initially seen as something different, but the fact that Warner Bros went back to it rather than making new films in a similar vein says it all.
