Why Joker: Folie à Deux Was the Biggest Genre Twist Fail of the Year
When I heard that Joker: Folie à Deux is a musical, my jaw dropped. And not in a good way. While I love musical theater and plan to watch the film with an open mind, I can’t help but think that the lack of transparency about this huge genre shift might be one of the boldest yet most tone-deaf marketing moves I’ve seen. This wasn’t advertised as “Joker the Musical”—instead, fans were left to discover this shift the hard way, likely with a mix of confusion and frustration.
Was It Too Much of a Risk?
When Joker debuted in 2019, it captivated audiences with its gritty, psychological tone, presenting a deep, unsettling look into the mind of Arthur Fleck. The follow-up, however, introduces musical elements, a significant genre shift that could easily catch audiences off guard—especially if they’re expecting the same intense, grounded storytelling. A bold choice like this works best when the audience is primed for it, allowing them to be open-minded rather than confused or disappointed.
Imagine going to see a dark psychological thriller—The Godfather, for instance—and halfway through, the characters start singing. That sounds ridiculous, right? Now, Joker: Folie à Deux may very well be an artistic achievement that merges dark themes with musical elements in a genius way. But without that heads-up, fans of the first film were primed for a completely different experience, only to be thrown into a spectacle they didn’t sign up for. There’s a fine line between artistic experimentation and outright alienating your fanbase, and this shift feels like the latter.
Did the Risk Pay Off? The Numbers Say No
It’s clear that the risk did not pay off. Joker: Folie à Deux grossed about $201.1 million, a massive drop from the original Joker film’s billion-dollar box office success. That’s an 80% drop—a significant indicator that the fanbase wasn’t thrilled. The marketing campaign has been widely criticized for downplaying the musical aspect, which likely led to this backlash. The fan reaction was swift, with many fans expressing outright disappointment and some even walking out of screenings. This response suggests the studio underestimated just how much audiences expected consistency in tone and theme from the first film. (source)
Why Not Tease the Musical Twist?
I feel like maybe they were going for a surprise genre-blend similar to how the 2011 film Cabin in the Woods, combined horror with comedic twist that delighted audiences. Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon ran a successful campaign that both kept audiences in the dark about the twist and intrigued them to find out. I personally watched that film covering my eyes in horror until the end when I watched openly in delighted laughter. Sometimes surprises in film can not only garner more attention, but also create an unforgettable experience for the audience.
However, you need to do it right and read the room. Cabin in the Woods successfully hinted at the genre-bending from the start while keeping their twist concealed. Their ad campaigns made fun of classic horror-film tropes that get people killed like ignoring warnings and choosing to "split up" and interviews and early reviews hinted that this film was not what you'd expect. It helps that the film was also not a sequel to a huge fandom with specific expectations. However, anyone who was already a fan of writers Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon would know their dark humor style from Buffy the Vampire and therefore be a little more prepared. Viewers were also intrigued by interviews with the promise of a "the unexpected".
Additionally, they took the "right" risk here by reading the room. Adding unexpected comedy to a film promoted as traditional horror had been done before, but not quite like this. There was already a market for comedic horror and it's often the same people watching traditional horror. Plenty of people love Buffy, Supernatural and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. How many people would love Texas Chainsaw Massacre the Musical? Less I'd bet, but ironically still probably more than Joker: Folie à Deux, and they'd likely call it "something the Musical so people knew what to expect. My point is while there may be an audience for dark super villain musicals, that audience is not necessarily the same people who loved the first Joker film, and thus you are taking a risk with an already established fan base, that I don't think was the right risk to take.
Marketing the truth about this being a musical might not have saved the film, but if it was promoted with a nod to its musical theater elements that would at least be a start. At the very least they could have gotten some feedback from fans before making this drastic change, but while they may have wanted to surprise the audience like "Cabin in the Woods" did, they failed to do that in a way that delighted fans.
Ultimately though, a sequel should be a continuation
Even if Joker: Folie à Deux had been marketed with total transparency, I still think the biggest mistake was making this film a direct sequel rather than a new, standalone project. When audiences watch a film and its follow-up, they naturally expect continuity in tone and storytelling. A sequel implies a progression, not a drastic genre change that breaks from the spirit of the original. They could have released Folie à Deux as an “alternate take” on Joker’s world or as a unique, standalone musical inspired by Joker, which would have allowed audiences to appreciate it on its own terms. That would need to be done again with clear marketing, but ideally after giving us a real true to the original grit sequel. This would’ve given fans closure on the original story before launching into something as unexpected as a musical. By marketing it unclearly, they set fans up with the wrong expectations, creating disappointment rather than excitement for this bold creative direction.
An Open Mind for a Bold Experiment
All of this said, I still plan to watch Joker: Folie à Deux. Now that I know what to expect, I’m interested in how they blended these genres and took a bold creative risk. But as much as I might enjoy it, I still feel that more clarity upfront would have been a better approach, allowing audiences to go in with an open mind rather than potentially feeling alienated.
I’ll be curious to see how my thoughts evolve after seeing the film. For now, though, I’m empathetic to the backlash and think a little transparency in marketing could have gone a long way in making this unique twist feel like a welcome surprise, rather than a confusing one.
Sources referenced and reviews read to inform my opinion:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt11315808/
https://comicbook.com/movies/news/joker-2-reviews-rotten-tomatoes-score-fan-reactions-folie-a-deux/
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/joker-folie-a-deux-box-office-total-bomb-status-explained/
https://screenrant.com/joker-2-folie-a-deux-first-reactions-social-media/
https://screenrant.com/joker-folie-a-deux-box-office-disaster-breakdown/
https://www.newsweek.com/joker-sequel-bombing-box-office-1964792
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/joker-folie-deux-falling-flat-152024980.html
https://screenrant.com/joker-2-box-office-total-worldwide-domestic-opening-records/
https://www.looper.com/1679465/joker-2-first-reactions-saying-same-thing/
https://www.moviefone.com/news/joker-folie-a-deux-craters-at-the-domestic-box-office/
https://collider.com/joker-2-global-box-office-192-million/
https://decider.com/2024/10/29/joker-2-streaming-movie-review/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://people.com/joker-2-first-reactions-folie-a-deux-venice-film-festival-8697650
https://people.com/quentin-tarantino-liked-joker-2-joaquin-phoenix-8736987?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://comicbook.com/movies/news/joker-2-box-office-milestone-folie-a-deux-bomb-budget-weekend-box-office/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arts/the-cabin-in-the-woods-chases-horror-conventions-down-a-dark-alley-and-stabs-them-6581760
©Written and conceptualized by Corrine Byrd, with editing support from ChatGPT
Comments
Post a Comment