Joker changed everything...

[Union Comics]

I believe that after the astronomic success of Joker, a dark, adult and low budget movie, the super-hero genre will change forever. I think that after this movies we will get different takes on less known characters with a more adult, and a more "cinephile" take. The Joker movie was very inspired in Scorsese, now imagine for example a Question movie with a Hitchcock "taste", or a Deathstroke movie with Tarantino traces, imagine less known characters and villains getting low budget movies but with great quality. Deadman, Riddler, Two-Face, Lex Luthor can be getting movies with more authorial takes.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I don't think that. Joker just applied the arthouse genre type film Scorsese was making in the 70's to comic characters. I'd like to believe that, but if we are being real, most studios will chalk it up to "well it's the Joker".

Trust me I'd love to see Constantine, Lucifer, Sandman, or Swampthing done right, but this won't do anything for them.

[Skullkid]

What has Joker changed exactly?
I feel it's done nothing but reinforce the idea that if you slap a popular name on something it'll make money.

[Jim Kelly]

It made a billion dollars without playing in China. It made a billion dollars with an R rating. It made a billion dollars AND it's an awards-worthy serious movie.

[Skullkid]

Again reinforcing the idea that slapping a popular name on something will make money.

[Agent Z]

Again reinforcing the idea that slapping a popular name on something will make money.

If that were true Justice League wouldn't have under performed.

[The Darknight Detective]

It made a billion dollars without playing in China. It made a billion dollars with an R rating. It made a billion dollars AND it's an awards-worthy serious movie.

Oh, it also made more of a profit than any other CB film, too.

Marvel is still the king, but WB/DC has something they can brag about.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I don't think that. Joker just applied the arthouse genre type film Scorsese was making in the 70's to comic characters. I'd like to believe that, but if we are being real, most studios will chalk it up to "well it's the Joker".

Trust me I'd love to see Constantine, Lucifer, Sandman, or Swampthing done right, but this won't do anything for them.

Again reinforcing the idea that slapping a popular name on something will make money.

What Jim is saying is that Joker has established that a comic book movie doesn't have to follow the basic formula laid out by past CBMs to be successful. It's established that a sci-fi, superhero/villain genre film can be something closer to an arthouse, Oscar-contending film as opposed to a CGI-heavy blockbuster. And I don't think its an isolated incident either, because we don't only have Joker currently reaping award nominations but also Watchmen coming out to rave reviews on HBO and likely being an awards contender itself next year.

[DrNewGod]

What Jim is saying is that Joker has established that a comic book movie doesn't have to follow the basic formula laid out by past CBMs to be successful. It's established that a sci-fi, superhero/villain genre film can be something closer to an arthouse, Oscar-contending film as opposed to a CGI-heavy blockbuster. And I don't think its an isolated incident either, because we don't only have Joker currently reaping award nominations but also Watchmen coming out to rave reviews on HBO and likely being an awards contender itself next year.

IMO, this argument gives the people that green light movies way too much credit for respecting the content on which their business is built, and the customers that fund them.

[Lightning Rider]

I think there are several lessons to be had from Joker's success, but unfortunately the one I see studios learning is that comic book movies are at their best when you suck all the comic book-ness out of them. Dark Knight, while great, is praised by people who otherwise hate the genre for that reason.

[The Darknight Detective]

I don't think that. Joker just applied the arthouse genre type film Scorsese was making in the 70's to comic characters. I'd like to believe that, but if we are being real, most studios will chalk it up to "well it's the Joker".

Trust me I'd love to see Constantine, Lucifer, Sandman, or Swampthing done right, but this won't do anything for them.

They don't have to make a billion, though. If the budget is contained, all those characters you mentioned could still prosper with half the take of the Joker... maybe even more than half its gross.

[Colossus1980]

I think if Todd Phillips directed Black Mask instead of the Joker I don't think it would have made anywhere near a billion. IMO having the Joker brand helped this movie's financial success. I really don't want to see a flood of villain origin movies, especially those without any special effects.

[superduperman]

We heard the same thing about Dark Knight and the only lesson WB seemed to learn from it was that they needed to make a dark Superman movie that divided the fanbase. In other words, it's not that there isn't a good lesson to be learned from Joker, it's that's WB seems to learn the wrong lessons from these things anyway.

[astro@work]

We heard the same thing about Dark Knight and the only lesson WB seemed to learn from it was that they needed to make a dark Superman movie that divided the fanbase. In other words, it's not that there isn't a good lesson to be learned from Joker, it's that's WB seems to learn the wrong lessons from these things anyway.

100% this.

What DC SHOULD have learned is that leaning into the authenticity of the character makes for a great movie and brings in the fanbase.

Instead, they tried to make a Dark Knight movie with Superman as the lead. Which is why they don't have a successful Superman movie franchise yet.

[kingaliencracker]

I think the only thing learned from Joker is that if you make an interesting and/or entertaining film, and market the **** out of it, then people will likely go see it. But also, Joker has name & fame value. If you take Joker out of the title, and all the other Batman elements that were placed in it, it doesn't make nearly as much money. Still probably an interesting movie that I would like, but not a $1 billion film. I think that's just being honest.

It is nice that Joker demonstrates you can make a smaller budget comic book movie that can be wildly successful. But you couldn't do a Superman film on this kind of budget and with the deviation from the source material and have it do as well. It's really a case-by-case basis.