It's a one-off?
We won't see this Joker in anything else?
shareNo, Phoenix wasn't trying to cement himself in an ongoing comic universe
share
MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > It's a one-off?
This is developing into a monster hit.
Never say never in the movie business!
Hey Queen I had an Astonishing Thought tonight....
You remember how I was ABUSING that Disney was actually Making more Money Than Sony off Far From Home and the Spider-Man films from Merchandisin?
remember I knew you would get desperate and want to point out "Disney isnt making anything off FFH" so I completely ruined your trolling by proving Disney Is actually making more profit from Merchandising on FFH than Sony made from FFHs theatrical gross"
Well I just realized something hilarious, and something that I know will KILL YOU....
what if I told you Disney Made More Money from Spider-Man's Theatrical Gross than WB did from Shazam's Theatrical?
where up until now,i've been specific to choose my words carefully not never say anything about Disney making any money from FFH's theatrical gross, instead I pointed out Disney owns the rights to Spider-Man and was making HUNDREDS of Million in profit from Merchandising off FFH
but With Disney and Sony agreeing to a new deal, more info came out.....and heres where its going to get very painful for you....
Disney did in fact make money from FFH's theatrical gross....
Disney actually made 5% first dollar gross, Which means They got 5% of FFH's 1.131 Billion.....which equals a little over 55 Million in PURE Profit.
now I'm sure that KILLS you given your hatred for Disney..
But heres the part thats truly going to haunt you
somehow Disney ended up making and having more SUCCESS off of just having a 5% cut of FFH's box office than WB got from 100% of Shazam's Box office.....lolololol
lol Shazam at Best Broke Even(even by your own standards and Break Even point you set for Shazam) WB literally made NO PROFIT from Shazam
lol WB had the rights to 100% of Shazam's profit and somehow Disney had the bigger success and Made 55 Million More in Profit from a film they only had a 5% stake in....
Disney--5%----55 Million in profit
WB---100%---0 in Profit
anyways just couldnt help but ruin your day with this one....this is a double kick in the balls for you...
I mean its bad enough you were wrong about Disney making nothing from FFHs theatrical gross, I'm sure it kills you now knowing Disney made a cool 55 M+ in Profit from FFH on top of their HUNDREDS of millions from Merchandising...
But I thought I could make it worse for you Pointing how Hilariously Disney made more Profit of a 5% stake in FFH than WB from a 100% stake in Shazam....
lolol
no seriously lololol
Queen.......
no thoughts on Disney making more profit from A 5% stake in Far From Home than WB did with a 100% stake in Shazam???
and just think, now that Disney has a 25% stake in The Next Spider-Man film, Its its Guaranteed Disney Will Net more Profit off a 25% stake in 1 spiderman film than WB did from Having a 100% stake in BOTH Justice League and BvS combined!!!
lololol
Let's see...by YOUR math WB made 90 million profit from Shazam. Remember...you said any marketing costs are covered by home media? By my estimation, that's more than the 55 million you say Disney got for Spider-Man. So I don't know exactly what your point is?
shareNope.
DC should stick to this type of film instead of trying (and mostly failing) to copy Marvel.
Not a DC movie ...not officially part of DCEU
shareIt's a DC movie, just not part of the extended universe.
shareDC logo never appeared at the beginning of the film, like in all the other DC movies.
They are not attaching themselves to it in any way, other than giving the movie house the right to use the names.
It was at the end. It not being at the beginning doesn't mean it's not a DC movie.
shareWell, all the other DC movies had the logo at the beginning.
Why not this one?
I think, and this is just conjecture, that they wanted this film to totally immerse the viewer into that great late 70's/early 80's vibe and a "DCFilms" logo would have disrupted that immersion. The black and white Warner Communications bars from back in the day was a killer introduction into this world.
shareThe black and white Warner Communications bars from back in the day was a killer introduction into this world.
Agree. share
I agree they should just be stand alone movies. Not everyone can do it so good like Marvel did.
sharePhoniex recently said he d be open for a sequel
We are gonna gonna get more dc movies outside of dceu thanks to joker being a hit
Interesting. I wonder how they will approach a sequel tho'.
Another continuation of the Joker story without having Batman would be too unsatisfying.
But bringing Batman would entirely ruin the very realistic vibe by making it too fantastical.
Also, a dark (semi-realistic) Batman take was already done in Nolan's Batman.
What do you think? Probably a Todd Phillips' take on Harley Quinn? That would be sweet.
If there are no restrictions due to Margot Robbie's version yeah A Harley movie could be intresting.
I d personally like a Deathstroke,Zasaz or Deadshot movie. If do what Sony is doing with Spiderman's character the possibilities are endless who could get a movie
Phoenix said he'd work with Todd Phillips again which in industry speak implies they'll work it out. People like dark comic book movies, DC should take note that not everyone likes family friendly comic book movies and do their own thing, don't mimic Disney.
shareThank you. Idk why people think adult comic movies can't be good
shareAlso does not mean he will be Joker again, Robert De Niro has been in nine Martin Scorsese feature films and one short film playing various characters, so Phoenix and Phillips could do similar.
Also yeah if this film really is the start of the DC Dark/Black movie franchise I'm all for it (love the darker comics and Elseworld stories).
https://screenrant.com/dc-dceu-joker-movie-dark-black/share
By Sandy Schaefer – June 13, 2018
DC's non-DCEU movie label will kick off with the Joaquin Phoenix Joker movie and could end up being called DC Dark or DC Black, according to a new report. The idea behind starting up a DC film sub-franchise is that it will allow room for directors to come in and make one-off DC movies that aren't beholden to the continuity of the larger DC cinematic universe. Much like DC's Elseworlds imprint does for the company's comic book division, DC Dark/Black would (in theory) open the door to more experimenting with the DC movie brand and its characters.
and etc., via the link
Really want there to be a sequel after that...
But, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Who knows, but this seemed like a one-off.
Any sequel would include Batman... meaning the kid has to grow up like 20 years and Phoenix would be late into his 50s, if not 60s
Which would come close to making Joker the Cesar Romero one who was 59 at the time to Adam West's Batman who was 38.
shareThere's no such thing as a one-off in Hollywood today if it's a box office hit.
share