Joker 2

[j9ac9k]

How did this movie go from $60 mil to $200 million?

It did? I know nothing about this movie, but usually that kinda thing happens when the studio sees what's been filmed and decide they have a hit on their hands so they throw more money at it to let the director go all out. (the first one making a billion dollars certainly helps) In this case, perhaps to plus up a bunch of musical numbers or large set pieces? Perhaps to get the rights to some of the songs they want to cover.

[Wildling]

It did? I know nothing about this movie, but usually that kinda thing happens when the studio sees what's been filmed and decide they have a hit on their hands so they throw more money at it to let the director go all out. (the first one making a billion dollars certainly helps) In this case, perhaps to plus up a bunch of musical numbers or large set pieces? Perhaps to get the rights to some of the songs they want to cover.

Are top song rights that expensive? I've seen Cruella was supposed to be $100 to $200 million budgeted. The former makes a lot more sense to me regarding the movie, which wasn't cheap looking but more in line with Wonka, a showy musical that cost $125 million, but Cruella used songs from Queen, The Rolling Stones, Bee Gees, The Doors, Nancy Sinatra, etc.

[j9ac9k]

Are top song rights that expensive? I've seen Cruella was supposed to be $100 to $200 million budgeted. The former makes a lot more sense to me regarding the movie, which wasn't cheap looking but more in line with Wonka, a showy musical that cost $125 million, but Cruella used songs from Queen, The Rolling Stones, Bee Gees, The Doors, Nancy Sinatra, etc.

Yeah, song rights wouldn't explain the entirety of going from 60M to 200M, but I was just guessing it could've been one aspect of the film they decided to throw more money at once they got going.

[Jack The Tripper]

The movie being a jukebox musical is quite underwhelming for me. As someone who didn’t like the first film but felt the musical aspect of Thor sequel could be interesting, it just seems lazier to me now.

[James Cameron]

Official poster. Trailer drops on April 9th



that title logo is awful...

[achilles]

It did? I know nothing about this movie, but usually that kinda thing happens when the studio sees what's been filmed and decide they have a hit on their hands so they throw more money at it to let the director go all out. (the first one making a billion dollars certainly helps) In this case, perhaps to plus up a bunch of musical numbers or large set pieces? Perhaps to get the rights to some of the songs they want to cover.

I have no idea about this movie, but in general, when a movie's budget balloons like that, it is a result of studio execs watching the footage and deciding it's terrible and ordering massive reshoots. This movie? Who knows.

[choptop]

Official poster. Trailer drops on April 9th



that title logo is awful...

Looks OK to me...

[James Cameron]

Looks OK to me...

FOLIEJOKAEDEUXR

it's overcomplicated and corny

[James Cameron]

I have no idea about this movie, but in general, when a movie's budget balloons like that, it is a result of studio execs watching the footage and deciding it's terrible and ordering massive reshoots. This movie? Who knows.

To clarify my earlier post about the budget-- the original Joker movie's budget was $60 million, and this movie's budget is now over $200 million. So it's not that there was a budget increase during production of this movie - though there may have been, that's not what I was talking about.

It could be for the song rights, Joaquin demanding a higher pay after winning an Oscar for his performance in the first one, or just a response to the first movie's massive success so they can now go all out with elaborate set pieces, musical sequences, etc. I would say it's likely a combination of all three, because that really is a significant jump. It's basically $10 million or so shy from an MCU movie budget.

[j9ac9k]

To clarify my earlier post about the budget-- the original Joker movie's budget was $60 million, and this movie's budget is now over $200 million. So it's not that there was a budget increase during production of this movie - though there may have been, that's not what I was talking about.

It could be for the song rights, Joaquin demanding a higher pay after winning an Oscar for his performance in the first one, or just a response to the first movie's massive success so they can now go all out with elaborate set pieces, musical sequences, etc. I would say it's likely a combination of all three, because that really is a significant jump. It's basically $10 million or so shy from an MCU movie budget.

Ooh - I know! The budget increase is because of ... Batfleck! We're gonna see Batman doin' a dance and singing "Love Don't Cost a Thing" alongside J-Lo who's playing Batgirl which is the real reason the Batgirl film got shelved, so as to not step on JLo's toes.

[choptop]

FOLIEJOKAEDEUXR

it's overcomplicated and corny

I mean it looks alright to me I bet most people won't care I mostly don't care what titles look like..

[James Cameron]

I mean it looks alright to me I bet most people won't care I mostly don't care what titles look like..

to each their own my friend

[JBatmanFan05]

The use of music in the first film was one of the keys to making that first film work, so, despite not being much of a musical type fan, I'm keeping an open mind. I have to trust Todd for now.

[Robotman]

Well Martin Scorsese has only directed one musical so Phillips doesn’t have a lot to pull from. So he could be in trouble

[j9ac9k]

Well Martin Scorsese has only directed one musical so Phillips doesn’t have a lot to pull from. So he could be in trouble

Maybe he'll rip off "Dancer in the Dark" this time.