Is it worth pointing g out that the 2018 winner of the same award was “Roma”. A film that made 5.8 million at the box office.
Anybody here even see Roma?
The 2017 winner was “The Shape of Water” directed by Guillermo del Toro. It made $195 million worldwide. And $63 million, basically a third was from US/Canada box office.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s a critical success. But, awards or no awards, the big question is will it make money when it comes to the general population. As you see the last 2 Venice Winners were hardly gandbusters at the box office and on the lips of the general movie going public.
Let’s temper ones enthusiasm with practical realities of what these awards mean. Which in the end is not much.
A quick google search will net you several articles stating Joker has a projected $85-100+ M opening weekend; even as high as $103 M. Joker’s budget is reportedly at $55 M. That’s half of the projected opening weekend. No matter how much you want to move the goalpost, Joker will exceed its budget on its opening weekend. That’s just projected domestic numbers.
Excuse me. You are dealing with “projected” numbers, rather than actual data, and I’m moving the goalposts. I think not.when it’s actually made $165 million 3x ROI. Then we can talk. Until then, it may be a critically acclaimed, award winning movie. That and $4 you can buy a latte. The only thing that matters in Hollywood is does it make money.
The Venice film awards do not denote a successful film. It may very well turn out to be a very successful film. Frankly I really don’t care whether it is or not. I’m just pointing out that just because it did well at the Venice film festival does not guarantee its success.
Who gives a damn about awards anyway. They don’t mean jack nor are they a measure of how good or bad a film is. Chariots of Fire won the best picture Oscar and it was a bucket of pig slop, especially compared to its competition.
Yikes! Someone needs a latte or tea @E-dot you beat me to it. 55 mil budget, Joker will def pass those numbers. It will get it’s return and make Village Roadshow Pictures, DC Films and others happy! Now will it join the coveted Billion Club? No. But Execs/Hollywood will be happy when it makes more money than the production cost.
I’m excited that Todd and company received some recognition and early success for their work.
I’m not at all concerned with how much money the movie makes. Bottom line is that the movie looks like it’s going to be good, so I will see the movie. Money is pretty irrelevant to the quality of a story.
So long as we’re talking about money though, I don’t see any reason to be concerned. It’s a relatively cheap film as far as the big productions go, and the early critical ratings are sure to bring in a wave of people. All of that on top of all of the DC fans that will come to every movie they make seems to indicate a fair income. I’ve seen no evidence to indicate that the film will not be a financial success, in fact it seems to be the exact opposite.
I see though that we just have different priorities when it comes to this. I don’t care at all about the financial success of a movie. I just care about the quality of a movie, and from what I’ve seen about the trailers and from what critics (the only people who have actually seen the movie so far, and thus the only ones we can base any arguments of the movie content-wise on) are saying, I’m excited.
I saw the trumpets and had the exact opposite reaction. But, not every film resonates with every person.
The thing I must confess to being interested in is why do people care what critics say? It’s just one person’s opinion. Even Rotten Tomatoes, which in theory, (but not in practice and I won’t go into that) is suppose to be the “everyman’s” point of view. But why does anyone care? Is it some kind of “being in on what’s in”? I’d wager that there have been some critically acclaimed movies that you didn’t like, and some panned by critics that you liked. So in the end, what are these reviews good for?
@E-Dot
Don’t even bother with weekend box office. If you put enough marketing muscle, you can create buzz for an opening weekend (that marketing budget isn’t included in that $55 million production budget). How do you think they are making these opening weekend box office projections? We put X dollars into mktg and open on Y number of screens opening weekend.
The real question is, what will it do the following weekend?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it did $85mil opening weekend. But, that is based on how many mktg dollars they want to put into it. The could easily layout 15-25 mill just in mktg dollars. Opening weekend box office (for any movie) is all about buzz, hype, & advertising.
Do you think Hollywood doesn’t have statistical models for this sort of thing? How do you think they work out how much to spend on mktg and how many theaters to launch on opening weekend. When it gets to $165 million (3x ROI) then let me know. Until then, it’s all social engineering.
@DSA
I don’t see any reason not to get excited about the reviews. Literally the ONLY people who have seen the film up to this point have unanimously cheered in its excellency. It’s the only basis that any of us have to judge whether the movie will be good, and whether or not we want to see it (besides the trailer of course, which is pretty cryptic and unrevealing of how good the movie will be imo). Sure, they could be totally off, and the movie could suck, and that would be a bummer. But that seems to me like an illogical conclusion to hearing rave reviews. I get the skepticism, but I have absolutely no clue where it is coming from besides maybe you didn’t like the trailer (which I get, this won’t be a movie for everyone I don’t think).
I also agree with you that there are definitely some really critically acclaimed movies that I hated, and some poorly reviewed ones that I loved. For instance, I didn’t really like Spiderman: Far From Home all that much, and enjoyed X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I also recognize that Spiderman: Far From Home has some really great stuff in it, and see why it got the reviews it did, just as much as I recognize the flaws of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The point is that reviews may be personal opinion, but most of the time they are at least in the right ballpark. They aren’t arbitrary; they have some basis on how good the movie objectively is. A critic will notice if a movie has poor pacing, or bad editing, or clunky acting. They also notice a good performance, and reflect that in their reviews.
It is certainly a weird concept to hear a review and immediately assume that the movie quality will be the opposite of what the review says. If the problem is that you don’t like the trailers, or you have some reason to think it will be a financial failure that’s totally cool, I get it. The blind skepticism based on general outliers seems unfounded to me, but I’m also the community’s resident blind optimist that trusts in everything, so you can feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.
@YoYoFroyo,
It comes from me being diametrically opposed with most reviewers. The only thing Roger Ebert and I were ever on the same page on was Myra Breckinridge.
Critics are like A$$hols, everybody’s got one and their point of view is warped anyway. In part because they have a vested interest In coming down lightly in criticism.
May 5 of 100 points than the truly think. It is in their best advantage to do. They tear down enough film studios films, they might not get invited to Venice Or Sundance next year. They have bit of skin in the game. I’m not saying they are going to only give good reviews. But it’s worth asking could they be more predisposed to see and accentuate the positives while slightly downplaying the negatives?
I hope the movie does well. I was merely pointing out winning the Venice film festival don’t mean success or failure for a movie. It’s something to be glad for the team that worked on it. But happy dances??? Seems like irrational exuberance, to me. In terms of the film’s fate, it’s much ado about nothing. That’s why I thought it relevant to disclose what had been the fate of the last two winners. Venice should not be viewed as a measuring stick for future success.
@Desade I get your point, many times I’ve disagreed with critics but I’m happy because first I loved the trailer and the only people who’ve seen it gave it high praises. My point was not on the success of the film, but how it’s more likely to be a well made film.
A professional film critic usually comes at a film with a different perspective than a more casual moviegoer. They look to see if a film is well-made, while a more casual viewer just wants to be entertained. Films that are not objectively well-made can, nonetheless, be entertaining, while technically well-done films can be subjectively boring. Citizen Kane comes to mind. It almost always scores high on any critic's list of influential films because it pioneered a number of filmmaking techniques and tricks. The things it pioneered have, however, become standard, so that impact is often lost on casual filmgoers. The Joker getting high critical praise is a good sign, the overlap between well-made and entertaining is significant, but it's not necessarily proof, and doesn't predict how someone who knows the character (and has strongly held notions about the character) will respond to this particular portrayal.
That said, I think the trailers make the film look very interesting, and I don't think that giving the Joker another origin story will ruin the character. It never had before, just one more multiple choice past for him. Most of the reviews I've seen have also stressed that the character's made to be understandable, but not admirable. You can understand a character's (or a real person's, for that matter) motivations without condoning their actions. The Dark Knight's Joker, after all, had understandable motivations, and no one thought that that detracted from the portrayal.
At any rate, it's already being critically praised, and, between it's comparatively low budget and high projections, it will most likely turn a profit. This is a good thing for the future of DC on film, and for Superhero movies in general. It continues to demonstrate that comic book movies are viable, and the shift from expensive spectacle films (which I also love) to a dark, smaller character piece helps demonstrate that these types of films can be flexible in presentation, so long as the execution is up to par. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
“Warner Bros/Bron/Village Roadshow’s R-rated Joker grossed $13.3 million at the Thursday box office, breaking the record for an October preview set by Sony’s Venom last year.
Joker also beat the Thursday previews of such R-rated films as Deadpool ($12.7M), It Chapter Two ($10.5M), its director Todd Phillips’ Hangover 2 ($10.4 million) and Logan ($9.5M). The record is owned by Deadpool 2, which grossed $18.6 million in May 2018.”
“Joker is far from playing out his hand. Warner Bros/Village Roadshow/Bron Studios’ dancing clown has strutted to an incredible $934M at the global box office after the 5th frame, making Joker the first R-rated movie ever to pass the nine-century milestone. Todd Phillips’ supervillain origins story is very seriously eyeing the $1B global mark – and without China in the mix. A feat previously achieved by…The Dark Knight.” (From Deadline: by Nancy Tartaglione)
