Joker: FAD projected to lose up to $200M

[TimotheeChalamet 4,486]

Yeah okay, we know it flopped. Enough with these threads 

[MOT 2,519]

9 hours ago, mamo said:

When I think about it, I really don't understand why Gaga decided to take on this role at all. 

 

She was offered 12m to star opposite Joaquin Phoenix in a high-profile sequel.

That's 12m. And it wasn't conditional on the movie being successful.

Twelve.

Million.

[mamo 17,097]

3 hours ago, ARTPOPSYCHOLOGY said:

What a dumb post. If anything, the Venice & UK premieres had way more positive reception & hype than when it was released. If anything, it was smarter for the film to roll out to average reviews, the standing ovation, all of her media appearances, the album, Etc. the minute the basement dwelling straights saw it, it was always destined to fail. The RT score before it came out was around what the first joker was. Then it became hip and engagement pieces to **** on the movie creating the **** storm that happened. Also, Gaga signed on before the script was finished because it was her most major role in a very well known IP. She obviously didn’t know the hate it would get but 90% of the reviews commend her performance and I still think she’ll be in award conversations next year. 

What’s dumb is you feeling the need to reply tbh. But since you chose to respond in such a negative manner: 

My initial post wasn’t out of malice or hate. It was simply questioning the choices that went into the marketing and promoting of the film. It could have been executed a lot better and prevented the mess that’s happening now which is costing them millions. 

Also did you fall down and smack your little  head on the pavement? The reception at Venice was mostly mid-negative. London was better, I’ll give you that. But Venice’s reactions were enough to taint the excitement and that’s really where the negative word-of-mouth initially set aflame. That and also the film in general being a "musical". 

And since we’re on the topic of "dumb", it’s a huge risk to launch a sequel to a billion dollar film a whole month earlier at Venice without having any test screenings at all. Some might consider that dumb, don’t you think? Since Joker: FAD had no test screenings whatsoever, there was no pre-warning to what the reception could be. Had there been test-screenings, maybe there was a possibility to re-edit and save the film. However, I truly believe T.P thought FAD was a masterpiece hence his refusal to show anyone the final cut. It’s truly his own fault. 

And it’s adorable how you still think Gaga has a shot this awards season. At most she’ll get a Golden Globe/Critics Choice nomination and even then that would be kind. If she couldn’t get nominated for House of Gucci then what makes you think the Academy would nominate her for this? Wake up.

Unfortunately, I think this film has been tainted which is sad for Gaga no matter how good her performance was. Let’s just move on to LG7 already. 

Anyways…Ciao. 

Edited 1 hour ago by mamo

[mamo 17,097]

2 hours ago, MOT said:

She was offered 12m to star opposite Joaquin Phoenix in a high-profile sequel.

That's 12m. And it wasn't conditional on the movie being successful.

Twelve.

Million.

LMAO omg I totally forgot about that big-ass pay cheque. That would be enough to say yes for sure. 
 

Thanks for the reminder! 

[InTheCloset 17,657]

Id rather succ dicque but at least im h0rny

C*m on me 

c*m c*m

C*m on me 

c*m c*m

[ThisGuyTony 27,991]

7 hours ago, Anderson123 said:

34 mins. 

So she was only in 24% of the movie 

[Morphine Prince 100,485]

8 hours ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

I believe it's about $300M to break even based on 200 production and 100 marketing. 

Where are you getting the $100M in marketing from? 

Usually films need 2.5 times its budget to break even, due to marketing + distribution costs, which is why film sources have been saying it needs $500M to break even. 

Edit: Found a source

“Joker 2” cost $200 million to produce and roughly $100 million to market and distribute. At this rate, the film won’t get anywhere close to the $450 million needed to break even in its theatrical run (ticket sales are split between studios and theater owners). Sources at Warner Bros. say the movie will break even at $375 million.”

So even if we take the best case scenario of $375M to break even, it will be losing up to $100M give or take. 

But, yeah, usually films need 2.5x which is why $450-$500M is the break even point from film sources, for anyone unfamiliar with the box office. 

Edited 17 minutes ago by Morphine Prince

[Morphine Prince 100,485]

6 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

 

Well it's at $165M WW ( a day before the China release ) after 11 days of exploitation so I believe it will crack $200M and maybe $300M.

Also I believe they make huge deals with platforms for exclusivity after the theatrical run which could help the movie to not represent a financial loss overall.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2339995649/?ref_=bo_hm_rd

Films usually need 2.5 times its budget to break even. Which is why even at $300M total it will lose up to $200M give or take. 

See post above this for explanation  

Edited 15 minutes ago by Morphine Prince