Joker 2
 

Sounds like it's really going to happen:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/joker-2-...igin-film-set/

There should be a bit of a time skip to show his beginning as a criminal mastermind.

Maybe it's unfair of me but... I'm skeptical.

All I see at this point is "Not Man of Steel 2."

Several reputable trades are reporting conflicting things right now. Some saying the sequel is on and others refuting the fact.

I seriously hope the sequel is happening. It's pretty easy for me to write-off something I don't like, so I'm glad to roll the dice on a sequel. It could be great. Easily my most anticipated film if true.

Apparently the director will oversee other DC origin movies?

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/...qq7ipMIqVzdCag

So... over here we have the Harley cinematic universe, and over here we have the DC villain origin universe.

https://deadline.com/2019/11/joker-s...ed-1202790774/

We will have to wait and see. :ohwell:

Deadline, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter tend to be the most reliable movie news sources, and they are saying conflicting things right now. Pretty interesting actually. My guess is that talks are happening, but nothing official yet.

Man, you and me both.

No Man of Steel 2, no Green Lantern Corps. :tsad:

And, uh... not that I WANT the film with Ezra Miller, but it also means no Flash. So silver linings, I guess? :tlol:

Would have loved to see what Man of Steel 2 could have been. I mean, I guess you can argue that BvS is Man of Steel 2, technically, unless Zach Snyder actually had a different direction he wanted to take things.

I think, in theory, introducing a new Batman in what would be "Man of Steel 2" could have worked in a cool way. Obviously, they crammed too much into BvS, but I still think I would have liked to see Man of Steel 2 as a Batman vs Superman film, but with more focus and less narrative threads.

That aside, I still would have seen a Man of Steel 2, without Bruce. I really enjoyed Man of Steel. When I think of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman together, it's actually a pretty cool set of films, in my mind. They aren't perfect and they aren't my favorites, but I appreciate them.

Which are the only two things they should even be worrying about right now.

And again, if they go around and recast Batman, maybe even Superman, but don't recast Flash (the only role that ever needed to be recast)... that will be infuriating.

Who needs the Justice League when you can have Harley Fvcking Quinn and a geriatric Joker?

He did. He wanted to do MoS 2 and was ready to do MoS 2 but WB made him do BvS. WB had been trying to make a BvS movie since the 2000s.

Getting to a proper "Justice League" should always be the destination. They don't even have a destination anymore.

Justice League has always been corny as hell to me, not gonna lie. I love the characters, but their allegiance just seems goofy to me. The X-Men feel like a family, and the Avengers...I don't know, maybe it's their "rag-tag" qualities that make it an easier sell to me. I don't have a good excuse for them. Maybe I think the Avengers are lame too.

I'm not trying to piss all over the JL. I love DC, love Batman to death, big fan of Clark, Wonder Woman. But other then Morrison's (who can sell me on anything) run on Justice League, I've never really found their stories or dynamic compelling. Give me another Joker over a Justice League reboot, any day.


*ZiiIIIIIIIiip*

When I imagine the "ideal" Justice League movie, I'm thinking of Morrison's JLA run. Just about any of his story arcs could be a movie, beautifully.

That's the truth of it. Now it's just "throw $hit at the wall", see what makes profit, and then milk it to death.

That's why we're getting a "Trench" spinoff, and Harley Quinn movies, and another Suicide Squad.

AKA, "Royalties for Geoff Johns."

I love those books but it’s hard for me to imagine them on film. Still, if it could be done, I’d probably dig it.

I guess I think of Justice League as one of the least interesting DC properties, oddly enough. Maybe that puts me in the minority. I’m much more interested in Swamp Thing, Doom Patrol, The Question, Sandman (both versions), Watchmen, and of course, Batman, Joker, and anything Gotham. Those aren’t strict boundaries for myself, just an example of the DC properties that I prefer over Justice League.

But yeah, I get the desire for a Justice League focused cinematic universe. It makes sense.

Yep.

First one was good, but so was Wonder Woman, and by all accounts WB learned exactly every single wrong lesson from the success of that and other films, and has micro-managed the sequel into a train wreck. Obviously, I haven't seen it, but many people already have, the test screening leaks all mirror each other, so there's obviously some fire behind the smoke, and it all sounds horrible. I can totally see something bad happening to a Joker sequel, as well.

If we know nothing else, WB is incapable of repeating a triumph. The problem with movies like Wonder Woman and Joker succeeding beyond expectations is, they weren't really expected to do all that well in the first place, thus the studio sort of stayed in the background and let the filmmakers do their jobs, and that led to some great things. HOWEVER, the thinking of the average WB executive is, "Well now, if some piss-ant movie like 'Joker' can make over a billion dollars WITHOUT our hands all over it, just imagine how much money we can make after we focus-group the hell out of the sequel!"

Don't forget, it only made as much profit (NOT box office, specifically Profit) because they didn't spend anything on it. They'll inevitably spend more on the sequel, which means they'll need to sell even more tickets to break even, and more spending means more micro-managing. They also simply can't keep making Joker movies that only passingly reference Batman, so whether anyone likes it or not, they're most likely going to try and finagle something to tie the "Joker Universe" into the Pattinson Batman universe, if they're not already trying to do that. Which I'm positive they are. I can promise you that they do NOT want three or four conflicting "Jokers" running around in a bunch of movies that don't connect. People like this Joker, thus WB is going to try and find a way to make him the "Official" version of the character going forward. I'm quite certain that the main reason they didn't already announce a sequel is because they're simply trying to "make it fit" with their other plans.

I mean, I liked the first one alright despite expecting nothing from it, so I'm cautiously optimistic. There's just only a few ways it can go Right and a hundred ways it can go Very Wrong. Phoenix did a good enough job to make me want to see more of him. BUT. It's WB. WB has never seen a good thing they couldn't ruin. It's entirely what they do.

We'll see.

Nah. They aren't about to tie it in with Matt Reeve's Batman or anything.

Todd and Joaquin have WB by the balls right now. They can choose to leave or return. If they return, it's going to be on their terms. Their terms have clearly been stated as "separate universe from DCEU".

Of course, if the first film is anything to go by, this film will have to go through a gauntlet of doom prophecies and audience outrage before it is finally allowed to prove itself.

My two cents, anyway.

We'll see. You have a lot more faith in them than I do.

If you really believe that there have been NO conversations about "square peg/round hole"-ing this into their larger universe, I have a bridge to sell you. Movie executives don't care one bit about "integrity", nor are they inclined to let employees dictate terms to them about their big-name franchises. It might happen, it might not, but I promise you, that's a conversation they're having.

And even if it doesn't, and remains wholly its own separate thing, there's STILL a good chance they'll f*ck it up. Because again, it's WB. All they do is take good ideas and f*ck them up beyond repair due to shortsightedness and greed. I mean, every studio does that, but WB has raised incompetence to an art form.

Can they make two slam dunks in a row? Maybe, but it would be the first time in forever. We'll see.

I'm willing to believe the conversation happened on Warner Bro's side, but Todd and Joaquin have made their intentions clear and they have the negotiating power.
It's disingenuous to categorize Joaquin and Todd as mere "employee's" in this scenario - they have power. If WB wants this Joker, they need to play nice with them. This isn't Peyton Reed on an Ant-Man film. Not to mention, you have Matt Reeves who has also clearly stated that he wants to be left the hell alone.

They could screw it up themselves though.

I'm aware that those individuals have said a lot of things and their hearts are likely in the right place. They're still merely employees, though, in the eyes of WB "corporate", and no, that hasn't earned them any significant special treatment, although that would seem to make sense. Ultimately WB is going to do whatever they feel is going to maximize profits across the board, not just doing what's best for one singular film. Having two or more actors playing the Joker across several films is a frivolous expense, for one thing. If they can save $20 million by getting it down to One Guy, then it only makes business sense to do exactly that. Everyone already said they were stupid/crazy for splitting the role between multiple actors in the first place, and we're already presently down to One. That's telling. They didn't have to fire Jared Leto, they chose to - "conveniently", right around the time "Joker" started doing great. Now they've got some tough decisions to make.

We know they're going to put a Joker in a future Batman film (possibly even the upcoming one, although it's getting a bit late in the game for that). Casting calls and auditions cost money, hiring actors and dealing with agents costs money, enticing the fanboys to not hate a new performer in an existing role costs money. They already have a guy people like. The most cost-effective thing to do would be to maximize the use of their existing resources, rather than start from Square One all over again.

Phoenix and Co. ARE merely employees in this scenario, albeit they presently have some clout. But I think you're overestimating just how much that really matters to a global conglomerate like WB. When you're dealing with billion-dollar companies, the thinking at the Top Level is, the COMPANY is responsible for the success of anything they put out, the individual people involved are only responsible when things go poorly. You and I know that's not true, but I've attended management seminars, I understand how "Corporate" looks at things. Put simply, "Employees are tools to be used. If things go bad, it's 100% the employees' fault; if things go well, it's 100% the company's incredible foresight that allowed those people to succeed." I repeat: All success belongs to The Company, and all failures belong solely to The Employee. That's how things operate at the billion-dollar corporate level. It's nonsense, but it's how it goes. One movie won't change that.

I'm just incredibly pragmatic about these kinds of things. I'm not going to go so far as to say, "This is definitely going to happen", but it's definitely a strong possibility and saying otherwise is kind of silly. No actor or director has enough "pull" to stop the parent company from doing whatever they jolly well please, regardless of how well their most recent project did. It's ultimately going to come down to whatever WB thinks will save them money up front while maximizing profits from future films.

And even if none of that happens, it's still about 60/40 as to whether or not they'll just ruin the sequel by strong-arming their own choices into it, like they're apparently doing with the Wonder Woman sequel.

I fully admit that I expect the worst from WB by default, because they're a terrible, terrible company that makes every possible bad decision at every given opportunity, but I'm also just a pragmatist who doesn't deal in wishful thinking. Plus, I've already been burned too many times by these assholes. "Joker" was a pleasant surprise but they've got a long way to go to convince me that it was anything but a fluke.

Again... we'll see.

We can call them employee's, but it doesn't change the fact that they have a product DC wants and DC will have to bend to their terms if they want that product.

It's not about special treatment. It's about "if you want this product, here are the terms." It's that simple. These guys are not under contract for multiple films. This isn't the negotiating table for the first "Joker". The dynamics are different now that the film is a worldwide success story and one of the most profitable of all time.

When has Joaquin ever done anything he didn't want to do? If he doesn't want to do a film in a shared universe, he ain't doing it. If DC dictates a shared universe, he walks.

I hear what you're saying about the power dynamics in Hollywood, and if this were any Marvel film, you'd be 100% right, but this isn't that. Based on the lack of contractual obligation that typically plays a huge part in how the the creative power is divided, and the clear comments made in unison by the star and director about where they want to see the film head, it's clear to me that this is not a film that is about to be manhandled into a shared universe.

I have never in the history of the world seen a scenario where a director and/or actor essentially held an entire studio hostage and said, "We do this MY way or not at all." Those people would be told exactly where to go in no uncertain terms just for trying that kind of thing. It's simply not how the business works. Nobody anywhere has that kind of leverage. It simply doesn't happen.

Again, I'm not going to give an over/under on how likely it is to see the "Joker" universe merged into the rest of their Batman stuff. It might happen, might not. So don't take this as a prediction. All I'm saying is, I promise that it's at least been discussed, and that ultimately, WB isn't going to be told what to do or not to do by any actor or director. They'd love to keep Phoenix, but they definitely won't all start crying the blues if he ends up walking if he doesn't want to do what they ask. As far as WB is concerned, they were the geniuses who gave him the opportunity, NOT that he's the one who made them a billion dollars.

Also, if they wanted to, they could probably force him to do whatever they wanted, depending on what kind of contract he has. I have zero knowledge of those details, though, so I won't speculate. But it's been known to happen with a lot of actors.

Sh*t happens, is all I'm saying. Every good movie WB has ever made was in spite of the best efforts of WB themselves, so if they do a good sequel, hey, I'll be happy.

IF.

The reason you don't see these scenarios where the creatives "hold up" the studio's, is because this type of scenario is quite rare. Actually, to keep things in the DC realm, the reason negotiations for "Wonder Woman 84" took so long, were reportedly because Patti Jenkins was holding out for a hell of a pay day. In a similar scenario to this, Wonder Woman was mainly left alone, as you pointed out, and Patti Jenkins was only signed for one film. When the film was a huge hit, the studio wanted her back....but it took some time, because Patti now had the Powaaahhh, baby $$$$. She negotiated for more money and creative freedom, because she was free to walk.

But it doesn't end there, because Todd's film, Joker, cost even less than Wonder Woman and made even more. And Joaquin has way more negotiating power than Gal ever did, who was already signed on for multiple films, and has way less "star power". So, you can imagine....

So, it's actually not that unheard of, even within Warner Bro's in the last couple of years. But it is more rare then the quite common scenario you have described. Usually film studios do hold all the power. It's when things sneak up on them, that the tables are allowed to turn a bit.

And you've echoed my same point that yeah, Joaquin can just walk if he doesn't want to do a shared universe sequel. That is what it comes down to. There doesn't have to be a sequel, but if there is one, Joaquin will have a say in how it goes. Like I said, initially...
Sounds like we agree there, but...

You say WB won’t cry the blues if he walks, but yeah, they kind of will. The dude just made them more money than any of their other films. If they ain't crying about that, then I don't know what they're crying about.

You say they can force him to do what they want - No. they can’t. That’s the whole point, man lol. He is signed for one film. It looks like you’ve got your facts wrong, my dude. That explains a lot because your argument is sound but doesn’t fit this scenario.

It’s fair for people to have whatever lack of faith they want in a film, but the context and circumstances surrounding “Joker” give no reason to believe Joaquin will be manhandled into whatever shared universe DC wants. Quite the contrary.

Neither you nor I know what kind of contract Phoenix has, so it's pointless to speculate or try and say one of us has "the facts wrong". We can only speak to what we know. We DON'T know what the fine print says.

Much bigger stars than Phoenix have been forced to do movies that they had no interest in doing, simply because of some fine print somewhere. He's made ONE billion-dollar picture in his entire career; that hardly makes him Will Smith all of a sudden, and even Will Smith has been pushed around plenty in his career. I like Phoenix, but in Hollywood terms, he's still "a nobody who got lucky all of once." He's made a lot of good movies but nothing aside from this and the Johnny Cash movie ever made a big splash (and most people don't remember that one because it was so long ago). I admire his artistic integrity, but you know who doesn't? The guys in suits who sign the checks. To them, he's still just a guy they paid to do a job.

Again, we don't KNOW the terms of his contract, we only know what we've been told, and frankly, people in that business lie as a general rule. And there IS always a chance that WB put in a "you do what we tell you" clause. I say this only because it happens a lot. Channing Tatum being the first person who comes to my mind, and frankly he's a bigger "star" in Hollywood terms than Phoenix is.

I just have a hard time believing that any billion-dollar corporation would ever put any single actor or director in a position to hold so much leverage over them. The entire reason they have expensive shark lawyers and novel-length contracts is to prevent exactly that from happening.

Either way, you're still over-estimating the importance of this One Movie to WB's larger output. Yes, they're desperate for their DC brand to succeed, but they still have Harry Potter and Godzilla, among other things. They will not break down in tears if things fall apart between them and Phoenix. They're not going to hook their entire company's future on one horse.

I don't know, man. Like I said, "We'll see." But you can't presume I'm flat-out wrong in thinking what WB may or may not do, because you don't actually know any more than I do at this point. What I know is, studios tell actors what to do, not the other way around, and the squeaky wheel always gets replaced, not kowtowed to.

Thus... "We'll see."

IDK man.... just not feeling it.

I mean I loved the Joker, it was an awesome movie, but it was clearly set to be a stand alone film and there's always consequences when someone decides to go back and somehow make a sequel to a movie that was never intended to have one.

See the first movie ended just right, with Fleck becoming the Joker. Or at least this film's version of him. If anything the movie is more about a guy gone mad that could have literally have been anyone and not necessarily be THEE JokerTM. Since it ended with his genesis, it just feels right, for the sake of making a good movie, and telling a good story.

However when it comes to the comics, Arthur Fleck is no Joker. He is hardly a criminal mastermind or has the balls to go up against someone like Batman. He's not gonna suddenly learn advanced chemistry and come up with the Joker Venom and whatnot. The first movie ended fine, telling a new story, but with a sequel NOW you have the pressure of somehow turning Fleck more and more into the comic version of the Joker. Honestly he is so far removed from the more traditional version of the character that trying to somehow shoehorn him into that sort of role will almost ruin his previous performance.

I mean what's he gonna do? Dance as his goons shoot up people? Play lethal pranks or kill people with one-liners? That wasn't Arthur Fleck, not even the Joker version of him. The man is literally harmless without a gun.


I just honestly don't see what kind of story can be told now without ruining what made the first movie so great.

I think it's clear that Joaquin has a one film contract. He has said himself it was planned as a one-off. You're free to call him a liar, but I think it's pretty clear to everyone that this was a one-film deal. For anyone paying attention, there is a history with Joaquin's career. He doesn't sign on for multiple films at once. Look it up if you are interested. I'm going to go off the combination of his word and his past history over "actors sometimes lie" conjecture. The former is tangible.


He signed on for one film. It made a lot of money. If they want another film with him in it, they have to agree to each other's terms. Joaquin has said he doesn't want to do a shared universe film. If he still feels that way, they won't be making him. We are going in circles and are both pretty set on our stance here.

That's what happens when you sign hot names to one film and decide later on you want a sequel. Joaquin and Todd hold the leverage here - that's business. You don't have to believe it.

No, I'm not over-estimating it's importance, but I am stating the fact that WB values what this film brings to the table. It's not just "DC doesn't care whether they can make another Joker or not. It's whatever to them". No, they are in the business of making money and Joker just made them more in one go, than any of their other films have. That's a big deal to them. They don't say "whatever, we have Harry Potter and stuff" to that.

Of course the studio won't break down if they can't make a sequel, but they still want to work one out. They will compromise, like they did before, except with less leverage now, with Todd and Joaquin to make it happen.

If I am overestimating this movies importance, then why would WB suddenly be mucking their fingers up in it, if it isn’t considered important to them? Sort of negates your original point, if this film isn’t important. Then WB can just leave them alone again.

"Hook their entire company's future on one horse" ??

Now who said that? I don't think allowing creative freedom to Todd and Joaquin, like they just did to great success, would qualify as hinging their entire company's future on one horse. I mean, that's sort of ridiculous. They have other things going on, like you just said.

I believe that you are wrong, yeah. You believe I'm wrong. That's cool. I'm just here stating the facts as to why I feel that way. Studios don't get to tell actors what to do when they aren't under contract. Simple as that. If all we are here to do is disagree whether or not we want to believe that Joaquin and Todd are lying about signing on for one film, then I'm out. I'm taking them at their word, sorry. It's clear that this was a one-film deal.

I can understand this. It is risky going for a sequel to a story like this. I mean, it feels sort of finished and complete, story-wise. How do you expand on a mental health story like this? I am having a hell of a hard time imagining a sequel.

I guess that's what excites me though. That and the fact that I really trust this team now. The direction, acting, music, and cinematography were all fantastic, so I have some faith in this team. If the movie sucks, I'm comfortable ignoring it forever.

Consider this: we swallow down sequels all the time that exist solely because of a contract fulfillment and need to make money. While this film doesn't escape that - of course it is still a product, designed to make money - it at least looks to be propelled by a creative choice. This film isn't contractually obliged. It's being made because the creators want to make it. To me, that is exciting.

I was reading that Phoenix's deal DID include possible sequels today? Though I'm skeptical. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who's paint himself into doing movies he wouldn't want to, like let's say if Joker 1 ended up being a miserable experience for him.

Him and Todd have reinforced the idea that this was designed as one-off too often for me to think otherwise without some kind of evidence. I think I also saw that rumor fly around but we’ve seen pretty much every rumor pop up.

He doesn’t seem like that kind of actor at all though, I agree. There was the whole Dr. Strange debacle of course.

Coola: I share many of your exact same concerns.

Whenever anything that was designed to NOT be sequelized inevitably gets a sequel... it almost never works out well. That's the inherent danger of success.

They CAN make a good sequel. In theory. As I've said, I definitely liked Phoenix enough to see more of his portrayal, but everything you said is true as well. This Joker is compelling, but nothing at all like the character the general audience knows, and most of the film's criticism was entirely centered around that. The few people who did not like the movie all had the same complaint: "That ain't no Joker." And it's a fair point, I feel. As origins go, it's a good one, but it's still miles away from the character anyone knows.

Obviously, there's a way they can make the sequel all about linking Point A to Point B, and showing how he becomes the more familiar version that we know... but then that runs the risk of pushing it closer to what everyone says they don't want, which is for this to end up like a "standard" comic book film. But if you keep doing this series, you run out of options; you can't depict the "downward spiral into madness" forever, yet if you pay it off by actually putting him against Batman, now it's "just a regular comic book movie." So then WHAT do you do?

There's just so many variables. It'll be tricky to catch lightning in a bottle twice. But there's always a chance they can do a good sequel. If it were anyone but WB I'd be more confident, most likely.
---------------------

Aqua: WB ("allegedly") fired Jared Leto before the opening weekend grosses for "Joker" were even finished being tallied. That tells me a lot more than whatever Phoenix has said publicly about his contract, at least on WB's end, and what WB is thinking/hoping. Actors also are generally not supposed to talk in public about such things or they can get sued out of existence. So... yeah, it's not impossible for him to have lied, or at least told a half-truth. Nobody signs up for "one movie" based on ANY comic book franchise; there's always something about options for sequels and spin-offs, because again, the studios don't want to be caught with their pants down if a movie does better than expected.

It's very likely that there is a fine print clause which says only one movie was guaranteed, but that if the movie made over X million dollars that he'd be under obligation to either do a sequel OR play the Joker in another movie of WB's choosing. THAT kind of thing happens all the time, it's standard with anything based on a pre-existing franchise that might have a long tail.

We don't know. I don't know. I'm merely speculating based on Standard Operating Procedure in Hollywood. WB maybe didn't expect a billion dollars at the box office but they would NEVER sign any actor to a "one-and-done" deal for a character as famous and popular as the Joker. They'd absolutely have included a way to get him back if the movie did well. Otherwise they'd have to go crawling to him with their ass in the air and beg him to do the sequel, and studios DON'T do that. Again, that's why entertainment lawyers make so much money: to keep the power in the hands of the studios, and not whatever actor or director had a hit this month.

I could also fill a phone book with the names of film franchises that were implicitly designed to be "Just One." Wes Craven was adamant that there only be one "Nightmare On Elm Street", for example. We know how that turned out, in spite of his every effort (including several attempts to put the whole thing out of its misery his own self). That's one of a hundred examples I could cite.

You're right, we are going in circles. Because you apparently believe in Wishful Thinking and taking people's words at face value. I don't, not ever, I go by what Does Happen and Has Happened, and make my predictions accordingly. I will especially NEVER defer to something someone said during a press tour as "proof" of their pure intentions. You're telling me that a billion-dollar company can't force an actor to do what they want, but I'm saying, Yes, they can, it happens all the time. You're telling me the terms of a guy's contract when neither you nor I has seen it, so your guess is as good as mine about what it says. I'm basing MY predictions on the way things actually operate in Hollywood on a daily basis, not the reassuring words of an actor doing a press tour. Especially not someone like Phoenix who has gone out of his way to lie about numerous other projects in his career, sometimes for no reason but his own amusement. Jesus, man. I'm not saying it's a good state of affairs, I'm simply saying, that's how sh*t works in The Business. I have no dog in the race otherwise.

Yes, there is a 1% chance that WB was stupid enough to allocate full creative control to an actor who's only had one other hit movie in his entire life, and whose last notable movie was a mockumentary about what a failure his career has been. You're right, that's possible, just like anything is possible. What I'm saying - based on factual evidence as to how movie studios actually operate and do business - is that it simply isn't very likely.

I don't get why that's 1. So hard to understand, and 2. Why it's so offensive to you even to consider, to the point where it seems you're getting upset with me about it. "My goodness, people LIE sometimes? Movie studios might not have scruples? WHAT ELSE haven't I been told?!" It just makes you come off as a mark. And I do believe you're smarter than that. Honest, snark-free question: Did you also believe Kevin Eastman when he said he was balls-deep in the creation of the newer TMNT films, or did you spot that for the Obvious Lie that it was? How about Cameron and "his" new Terminator flick that we know he had nothing to do with? I'm incredibly confused WHY you'd take anything any of these people say publicly at face value. I'm not being mean, I'm just saying, it's not a good look, man. Everything - everything! - is spin.

Once more: You and I know exactly the same amount of information, at this point, which is not much at all. My predictions and speculation are evidence and common sense-based, while yours are seemingly based on wishful thinking and the words of people who are paid to lie. I'm sorry, but these things are not as simple as you want to believe they are.

For the last time: We'll See. As certain as I am that WB did everything they possibly could to protect themselves in the event the Joker movie did well, and the fact that they most likely DO have a substantial say in what comes next (no matter what ANYONE has said in public about it), I'm certainly not inclined to spend the rest of the week arguing about it. The last thing I'd ever do, though, personally, is take anything anyone said in a press release at face value. There's today's nickel's worth of free advice, feel free to take it or leave it.
--------------------

Andrew: As I said above, I am HIGHLY skeptical that WB would take a character like Joker and let anyone propose a "one-and-done" without leaving themselves a back door for sequels. That NEVER happens in Hollywood. It's The Joker, not Captain Boomerang. WB had to know that it would at least be moderately successful, and prepare paperwork accordingly so they could churn out more if they wanted to. Studios do NOT arbitrarily leave an inordinate amount of power in the hands of actors or directors when there is so much potential money on the table. This would be a first. And I'm not inclined to believe it.
-------------------------

Now, let's please get away from speculating as to what kind of power a global conglomerate may or may not have over a harelipped leading man with all of two profitable movies to his name, and please go back to speculating as to whether or not the inevitable sequel is going to suck. My Magic 8-Ball says, "Of course it will, dummy, it's WB!" But I'unno, maybe not. There are still plenty of good stories to tell with this version of the character, but also a lot of ways WB can polish all of the shine off, because WB f*cking sucks and ruining good things is what they do best.

So... We'll See.

Definitely designed as a one off thing from all angles creatively... but I wouldn't rule out WB themselves insisting on a 3 picture deal "just in case." I just find it hard to believe that Phoenix would sign such a thing unless he was reassured they wouldn't actually ever hold his feet to the fire on such a thing.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Historically, that is how these projects work. It is what it is.

If not direct sequels, it's generally also "_______ is under obligation to do another film of the studio's choosing." Which could theoretically be anything, up to and including a "real" Batman franchise picture.

Actors don't dictate terms. Studios do. That's all I'm saying. We don't know what the fine print says... but we do know how it works most of the time, and that's what I personally choose to lean into.

To be honest, I'm still confused as to where you place the "importance" of this film in WB's eyes. Your point early seemed to hinge on the fact that this sequel would be too big of a monster for WB to not stick their fingers in and mess with the formula. That now that they had a behemoth on their hands, they'd want to have more of a say.... but then you went on to tell me I was overestimating this film & it's sequels importance in WB's eyes, because they had other franchises to think about. Doesn't make sense. But...

- People do sign up for one movie. Being rare and being unheard of aren't the same.
- Studio's do not want to get caught with their pants down. Doesn't mean it never happens. Again, look up the Jenkins situation. I provided a clear example of WB director, in the last few years, who held out for more power & pay on the WW84 sequel after she was only signed on for 1 film.
It happened at this very studio only a few years ago. I don't see how you can look at that situation and say "nope. doesn't happen." That is fact. You can ignore it if you like, but there is pure evidence that studio's aren't always 100% prepared.

Yup. That happens all the time. But not here, likely.

Man, you have this eloquent way of starting your points with "neither of us know, but actually I know this - they would NEVER...."

This is incorrect though. Here is an example of this happening at the very same studio a couple years ago. Says it better than I could -

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...rector-1031052

"When the film became an immediate hit, lassoing over $103 million in its opening weekend, Jenkins and her camp found themselves in a very enviable position. Negotiations began for her return after that first weekend but dragged on even as the movie showed remarkable staying power, becoming a true (and rare for summer 2017) phenomenon.

Sources say Jenkins will receive directing and writing fees in the high seven figures (somewhere in the $7 million to $9 million range) on WW 2 but, more significantly, will have a considerable backend. The deal is a superheroic leap for Jenkins, who was paid $1 million for directing the initial WW but was looking to get something more on the level of Zack Snyder's pay after he helmed Man of Steel. Just as Wonder Woman broke barriers for superhero movies, Jenkins' deal breaks a glass ceiling for women directors."

THR - highly reputable source. Still want to deny that actors & directors never hold leverage over a studio? Maybe you're right about WB not being the brightest bunch. You don't seem to have much faith in them. Maybe that applies to their contractual arrangements. You don't think they wish their lawyers had roped in Patty for more films, before having to increase her pay by 8 million dollars, share the backend, and likely allow for more creative freedom? They didn't know what they had. They slipped. They bent their knees to bring Patty back.

And oh man, it goes even deeper! I don't want to stuff this post up with links, but everyone go ahead and check out the type of weight Gal was reportedly throwing around before signing on for Wonder Woman 84 - Because, guess what? She had a three-picture deal (BvS, Justice League, WW) so they had to play ball to sign her back on. Huh.

It's confusing that you are relegating my argument to be based on "wishful thinking" when I provided the example of Joaquin's history of movie choices and the WW 84 situation. He has denied many roles because they were linked to sequels. I am using past history of Joaquin as well as context from his own words. You are using past history based on other actors.

And hey, I know you aren't trying to argue the scenario you describe is a good state of affairs. That's all good. And I'm not trying to tell you that you are necessarily wrong about the inner-workings of Hollywood. I am saying you can't take one template and apply it to every situation and just say "I know Hollywood. I know how this works. I've seen it." There are variables involved. Things don't always go the way you are imagining, 100% of the time. Haven't you ever heard of "exception to the rule"? They always exist. I've provided examples of that above. I could dig up more but this is getting a bit long in the tooth. .

Pt 2
 

No one is saying they gave him full creative control. Although...I mean, it looks like they did though, huh? They clearly got to make the movie they want to make .Rated "R", no Batman shoehorned in, no forced sequel.

If by "control" you mean allowing him to sign up for one film, then yeah. They did do that. We all know they didn't really give a diddly about this film. The budget was way lower than normal, they weren't given as many days as they wanted to shoot, despite that small budget, and according to reliable trades, some at the studio were pretty much under the belief that the film wasn't going to actually move forward, but it somehow did. Really not that hard to believe that they weren't hawking over his contract as hard as they wish they had now.

Plus, that's the ball game Joaquin plays. If you want him, you have to play by some of his rules. The man, who's career you say wasn't going all that well, was willing to turn down millions of dollars and the role of a Marvel superhero because the contract wasn't going the way he wanted. That says something about his negotiation power and his willingness to bend to a studio's whims before walking away. Again, this is especially true if his career was as "down in the dumps" as you paint it to have been. Cause, I mean, "who's only had one other hit movie in his entire life, and whose last notable movie was a mockumentary about what a failure his career has been." does sound kind of harsh.



Oh, I'm not...offended? Not upset with you, at all. Where is the naivety of that quote meant to capture me coming from? I'm well aware that studios lie and play hardball. I called out Ben Affleck as lying about remaining as Batman from day 1 - not everyone did. I called out Reeve's when he was still pretending his Batman film would take place in the heart of what was the DCEU at the time. Trying to paint this as a scenario where I'm just the "naive guy who doesn't understand Hollywood" wouldn't be accurate. I follow the industry closely too. It's more about learning to weave and sift through the lies to find the truth, it's not that every single thing someone says in Hollywood has a big fat "LIE" stamp on it. That is naive.

I'm just not going to place my belief that "everyone in Hollywood is a liar" over the lethal combination of Joaquin's word, Joaquin's past actions, Todd's word, and WB's past history with Jenkins. It'd be foolish of me to ignore all that evidence.
I've actually provided quite a large amount of context to support my stance in this very post, so I'm prob beating a dead horse, by now.

No, see, I'm providing tons of context as to why I feel this way. From the

- Jenkins negotiations for WW84
- Joaquin's willingness to depart from MCU
- Joaquin's quotes about this being a one-off (but really, his actions speak louder than words ever could and he abandoned MCU over contract disputes)
- Todd's quotes about this being a one-off

I am using context of past history and what we have seen come to fruition as well as context from press and interviews for this film. I'm going out of my way to cite my reasoning. It's really disingenuous to say this is all my "wishful thinking". To be frank, I'm the only one of us providing any context beyond "I know Hollywood." Which I also do. You are setting me up as a strawman going off "wishful thinking", when the truth is that I am providing context for my thought process every step of the way.

The reality is, you may watch Hollywood too, but you really are going off of nothing but your perceived knowledge of the industry. I also have knowledge of the industry, as well as the context and articles I am providing.

We'll see. "for the last time" ?? Sure. We can end the debate, but if you reply to my points, I'll probably reply to yours. So I take it this is your way of saying you're done, as opposed to trying to tell me that I'm done. :)
I enjoyed the debate though.
The guy who turned down millions and an evergreen role at Marvel, because he didn't want to sign on for more than one film? Yeah, I have a hard time believing that too. Sounds like wishful thinking for someone who wants a guaranteed sequel, tbh. (Not implying that's you, Leo)

Joaquin does what he wants. His actions speak louder than words.

Plus they kinda have to have Phoenix or they'll be stuck with a Son of Mask situation where it already sucks cause the original star didn't return for the sequel.

Gotta admit, I love these massive posts from Aqua and Leo. Great reading. Keep 'em coming, guys.

Glad you enjoy reading, CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy!**

Fresh interview! - Todd speaks on the sequel rumours:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/to...ct-1202191289/

Nothing official yet.

Choose to believe them or not, I guess. I do.

Nah.

/10char