- cross-posted to:
- comicbooks@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- comicbooks@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I called it based on only ever hearing the title. You have to have made a ton of bad choices to wind up at a place where that title seems like a good idea
Thank you. I agree.
No test screenings. Oopsie.
I liked it.
From everything I’m reading were they even trying to be successful? I’ve heard a lot of stuff about how it was basically a character assassination cuz they didn’t like the fans and how they related to the character? Is that accurate?
Who would intentionally put their time and effort into a movie, risk hurting their careers and risk losing the studios money? And all that to upset fans of the characters?
That movie could have easily went the way of Batgirl and be shelved for a tax cut.
I honestly think Joaquin Phoenix is the kind of guy who would do all of that. I also think when your movie makes like a billion dollars you probably have a lot more creative control on the sequel than the people who directed Batgirl did. Not that I’m saying that’s what happened, it just freaking looks like it.
You can’t use box office take to measure a movie’s success.
Shawshank Redemption is often regarded as the best movie of all time. It was a box office flop.
Battlefield Earth is often regarded as the worst movie of all all time. It was also a box office flop.
Using those two examples, obviously the only true measure of a movie’s long term success is whether or not they overuse Dutch angles.
If Folie a Deux doesn’t use a shit load of Dutch angles, maybe it’ll turn out OK.
I think they’ll make their money back, but I don’t think part trois will be forthcoming.
