Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
If I run the Scope version with the masking up and using the Scope setting, I don't see any difference in the picture at the 5:06 mark. It still has the same borders on the sides and fills the screen from top to bottom. So I guess I'll run with that.
It only has the one aspect change in scope version from 1.33 to 2.20 before that moment, so you are seeing everything. I think scope version is the winner for anyone with masking.
if you are having pillar boxes you could use a 2.20 setup or make one that is zoomed larger and re-land it on your top then adjust your bottom masking, your screen should accommodate being 2.00.
We had two people Monday night, and three last night. The three left before the show was half over. I'll bet this thing goes to video in about 2 weeks. I now officially give no shits about this one. We still have it for 9 more (ugh) days.
Those who are fans of 70mm were anticipating a 70mm print version of this film. After all, the original "Joker" widely circulated in 70mm, so why not the 2nd one, now? There also were IMAX prints of Joker 2 coming along, so naturally, the 70mm prints would be out there, right? Well, apparently not -- but the fact that the bulk of the movie is cropped for 2:20 ... well, it sure sounds like it was photographed in the expectation of wide 70mm distribution for it.
My personal guess is that the execs at WB saw the early version(s) and realized early on that Joker 2 was a stinker. The IMAX prints were contractual and had to be done, but the 70mm release ...? They simply cancelled it (and I'm assuming that 70mm really was anticipated, as mentioned above), and so 70mm never happened. Saved some $$$ there, they did, and I'm sure they're congratulating themselves now on how clever they are, saving the co. some expenses -- which is what's happening a lot these days at WB.
Those who are fans of 70mm were anticipating a 70mm print version of this film. After all, the original "Joker" widely circulated in 70mm, so why not the 2nd one, now? There also were IMAX prints of Joker 2 coming along, so naturally, the 70mm prints would be out there, right? Well, apparently not -- but the fact that the bulk of the movie is cropped for 2:20 ... well, it sure sounds like it was photographed in the expectation of wide 70mm distribution for it.
My personal guess is that the execs at WB saw the early version(s) and realized early on that Joker 2 was a stinker. The IMAX prints were contractual and had to be done, but the 70mm release ...? They simply cancelled it (and I'm assuming that 70mm really was anticipated, as mentioned above), and so 70mm never happened. Saved some $$$ there, they did, and I'm sure they're congratulating themselves now on how clever they are, saving the co. some expenses -- which is what's happening a lot these days at WB.
I think the movie is great and I have loved the philosophy and music under...just it's doing bad at box office because it's like poison for general audience and even for a part of the more "cinephiles"..
But I have really liked the idea of deconstructing the figure of joker and somehow even the musical genre ...
I watched it this afternoon with the idea that this would be one of those movies where the critics were calling it all sorts of bad things but in reality I would think it's a pretty good movie. (This has happened many times before.)
I was actually prepared to say something about how we all dump on Hollywood for a lack of originality and then when they actually do something original they get punished for it.
Nope.
The only good thing I can say for it is that "some" of the music is pretty good. Unfortunately, neither Joaquin Phoenix or Lady Gaga are any great shakes as singers and it really shows with that jazz and swing style. In many cases there's minimal accompaniment so there's no rhythm section or trumpets or or whatever to hide behind.
It's too bad because a lot of the included songs are songs that I like quite a bit, but their performance didn't do them justice.
I don't know if anyone's going to come and see this here but I really wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
The first Joker movie was really good. They have the same director, writers and the same lead actor. I wonder what happened.
Good luck, Frank. Here's my report from the weekdays this week:
Monday - 2 people
Tuesday - 3 people (they all walked out in the middle)
Wednesday - 1 person (a senior citizen)
Thursday - zero people
Our neighboring theater down the road with 3 screens outgrossed Joker this week with both Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (in week 5) and Wild Robot (week 2).
I agree about the music. There is a quite obscure song in it called "The Joker," which was originally done by Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66. Check Sergio's version out below if you want to hear how it SHOULD sound!
Interestingly, this movie seems to have attracted quite a crowd during opening weekend over here, but then it crashed.
Last Saturday night, in a half-full auditorium (which is quite something nowadays), people started to walkout half-way through the show.
*slight spoiler warning*
I think this movie has been falsely advertised. If you look at the trailers, the movie is being sold as something it's not. Can you conclude from the trailers that this is essentially a musical? I didn't. I also wasn't pleasantly surprised to find out it was... Did you anticipate that this entire movie ended up being a courtroom movie? Did you anticipate that much of the action depicted in the trailers happened in the Joker's head? And did you really expect they'd go for the story, where the Joker isn't the real joker?
What they essentially did: They've undone the first movie, because apparently, you're not supposed to like it.
I agree the trailer was a case of consumer fraud. I had no idea it was a musical until my booker told me the day before it opened. He thought it would do better than it did. Gonna be a long week.
I agree the trailer was a case of consumer fraud. I had no idea it was a musical until my booker told me the day before it opened. He thought it would do better than it did. Gonna be a long week.
Yeah but basically nowadays they never advertise musical as musical, except it's a movie for children/families...even wonka wasn't advertised as musical
Tweet
Comment