Talk:Joker (2019 film)/Archive 1

Martin Scorsese as executive producer

According to a 2018 Collider article, Martin Scorsese is an executive producer. Although, now in the DC official website page for the Joker, Scorsese is not one of the executive producers. Unfortunately, somebody can't seem to find it, or is ignoring it, causing me to not accept my edit.Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because DC isn't list him as an executive producer doesn't mean he's not one. A secondary source (in this case Collider) trumps a primary source (DC) every time (WP:RS). If Scorsese left the project entirely we would've already heard about it; sources say he's just not directly producing anymore. JOEBRO64 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are always first over a secondary sources, as secondary sources only report what they hear from others (or primary sources). Why do you think they're called secondary? Because unless there is a primary source, we go with the secondary source, and as shown, there is a primary source.Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are always first over a secondary sources—nope, see WP:PRIMARY. "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Saying Scorsese isn't executive producing because he's not listed on DC's site is technically original research. As I said we would've heard if Scorsese left the project entirely. Also worth noting that Sikelia Productions (Scorsese's company) is one of the film's production companies. JOEBRO64 00:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not even an assumption, or a prediction. It's a fact that he is not in the "list" executive producers in the official DC website. It's literally right there in the open. If he's not there, he's not there.Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says he's no longer involved? I provided a source (Collider) that says he's still involved. This Comic Book article published this month says he's still involved. You're basing your entire argument on the fact he's not listed on DC Comics' website even though the site doesn't deny his involvement. I don't see why to remove it unless we have a source that explicitly says he left the project entirely. JOEBRO64 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Your Comic Book source says he is a producer (not executive), which is false, as it’s already said he’s no longer a producer. This already proves that secondary sources can be behind or a bit innacurate.Iamnoahflores (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK but you still don't have a source that says he's no longer involved. And even then Comic Book likely means EP; sources often use "producer" and "executive producer" interchangeably. JOEBRO64 09:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

See, right there, you assumed what they meant. That's not their thinking, that's your thinking.Iamnoahflores (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

At least my assumption is supported. Yours contradicts what reliable sources say. JOEBRO64 19:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Saying that we have to wait for a reporter to write about it in an article, is like saying the official billing doesn't matter. Iamnoahflores (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

And the official billing doesn't even exist yet, more proof that your change is based on your interpretation of the source. That leads to another point: can't you just wait until we get an official billing to make the change? The DC website definitely isn't the final and probably not even the official billing, so right now we're basing it on what reliable sources are reporting. Multiple reliable sources say Scorsese is an executive producer, so we should too. JOEBRO64 19:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I KNEW IT! I TOLD YOU SO!Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"I was right" doesn't excuse that you violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:EW. If anything, you were actually wrong, your OR just ended up being true. JOEBRO64 22:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually I didn’t do original research as I had my source. You just misinterpreted your source after you ASSUMED when one article said “producer” and another said “executive producer,” they meant the same thing (executive producer) even though they are two different titles. YOU did original research l, if anything. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Just stop. I'm sick of having this conversation, and you're not being constructive. JOEBRO64 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ref

• http://collider.com/joaquin-phoenix-joker-movie-details/

JOEBRO64 14:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Rename

Shouldn't the page be renamed to Joker (2019 film) since it has already begun filming and has a release date of October 4, 2019. 101blazertrail (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. I was just about to bring this up! WP:PRIMARYFILM clearly states for films with the same name, if one is not the the primary topic, add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings). The page should be changed to Joker (2019 film) for disambiguation. I tried to move the page name myself but regulations wouldn't let me. Armegon (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wikipedical (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Joker (upcoming film) → Joker (2019 film) – Per WP:PRIMARYFILM, it clearly states to "add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)" if the film article is not the primary topic. Armegon (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Is there another film article simply called Joker? If not, then surely this rule applies: "If the film is not the primary topic, name its article after the film's title with the disambiguation '(film)' added at the end." --Mondo Beer (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There's dozens of films with the title Joker, examples: The Joker (1928 film), Joker (1993 film), Joker (2000 film), Joker (2012 film). I'm fine with either Joker (film) or Joker (2019 film) but Joker (upcoming film) seems to go against wiki guidelines. Armegon (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the source that states it is scheduled to be released in 2019. If it's delayed (or indeed released early), and moves to a different year, it can be changed again, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYFILM, which states: "For upcoming films where the release date is currently unknown, use (upcoming film) if disambiguation is necessary, for example Wikipedia (upcoming film). Once a release date has been confirmed by a reliable source, the page can then be moved to the correct year disambiguation". Date announced so there's no reason to keep this dab anymore.--Let There Be Sunshine 08:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support since the release year is now verifiable. It's always possible that could change, but the fact remains that the year is verifiable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems we have a consensus here in support of the move. Can someone with admin access now change the article title? Armegon (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead actor

Rather surprised at the choice of Joaquin Phoenix to play The Joker when Jared Leto did such a great job in Suicide Squad (film) and is signed up to reprise his role in the sequel.

If there are any reasons why Phoenix was picked over Leto, I think they should be included in the Production section. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This film isn't in the DCEU, which is why Leto's not reprising his role here. JOEBRO64 23:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Rewrites

This might be worth mentioning somewhere, but according to one of the actors, the film is being rewritten as it was shot. DarkKnight2149 08:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the bottom of the filming section. I'll probably add a bit more to it when we get more details besides it was because there couldn't be reshoots. JOEBRO64 12:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recently, there were also reports that the multitudes of leaked footage (such as this) was just a decoy for the Paparazzi, but I don't think that has been confirmed. https://revengeofthefans.com/2019/01/07/dc-whispers-shazam-trailer-birds-of-prey-costumes-joker-will-be-heartbreaking-more/ DarkKnight2149 20:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Universe?

Is this movie supposed to be in the DCEU or is it a Dark Knight prequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.160.114.107 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the article. It's supposed to be standalone with no connections to any prior franchise. JOEBRO64 01:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Runtime

Toronto International Film Festival says 122 minutes while Venice International Film Festival says 118 minutes. In my opinion we should remove it until we have another source like BBFC or AFI. --Mazewaxie 09:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Other posters released

Apparently other two posters have been released. Which one should we use? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Phoenix as Joker

TheJoebro64, it is problematic to delay mentioning who plays the titular character when reliable sources overwhelmingly talk about this with the film. That avoidance being "common practice" in such articles is not a good thing. Groupthink is a problem that leads to a cookie-cutter approach to every such article without any flexibility. It is a kind of WP:OWNership to require that all such articles proceed with exactly the same wording. Here, Joaquin Phoenix's starring performance is mentioned after "DC Black", which is barely mentioned in reliable sources. In contrast, pretty much all sources repeatedly talk about Phoenix as the Joker. Other elements are relatively minor compared to mentioning that upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've revised it a bit. However, I really don't see the issue with the previous format. IMO it's bad form to just shove Phoenix in the first sentence without introducing the film properly (and put him before Phillips, who is arguably more important). JOEBRO64 20:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentences continue to be problematic. If anything, it is worsened by postponing mention of the famous character and the starring actor. Todd Phillips is not a brand-name director like Spielberg and Nolan, and Scott Silver is even less known. I propose that we state in the opening sentence that the film stars the Joker and is played in the film by Phoenix, followed by whatever else. Per WP:LEAD, the article should open with the most noteworthy element. That will be Joker/Phoenix and not Phillips/Silver. Tagging others who recently edited this article: Mazewaxie, DisneyMetalhead, TropicAces, Draco9904. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would think that stating the genre of the film is first important (as-is). Secondly, films reference the director and the writer before they mention the stars. Something more appropriate would be along the lines of: "Joker is a 2019 American psychological thriller film, centered around and based on the DC Comics character of the same name. Directed by Todd Phillips, with a script he co-wrote with Scott Silver, the film stars Joaquin Phoenix as the titular villain. The film, independent and separate from the DCEU film franchise, is intended to be the first installment in a series of standalone films under a banner tentatively titled DC Black...." blah blah blah you get my drift. I would argue that something along these lines would work better. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

yeah I think something along the above lines by DisneyMetalHead work; stick to the Avengers mold. My slightly altered version (with just some choice/trimmed terms): "Joker is a 2019 American psychological thriller film, based on the DC Comics character of the same name. Directed by Todd Phillips, with a script he co-wrote with Scott Silver, it stars Joaquin Phoenix as the titular character. The film, separate from the DCEU film franchise, is intended to be the first installment in a series of standalone films under a banner tentatively titled DC Black...." TropicAces (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I feel like those are both too wordy though, and the current setup . And I'm not a fan of "of the same name", see WP:ELEVAR. Still, I think that the director and writer are more important than the star; without them, you don't have the film, and you don't have Phoenix. This whole discussion strikes me as trying to solve a problem that no one's having. JOEBRO64 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, nothing requires the director and the writer to be mentioned before the stars. It will depend on the film. Some films will have a famous director, some will have a famous star, some will have both. WP:LEAD says to lead with the most noteworthy element. If the director or the starring actor is less-known, they should not go first. The vast majority of mainstream sources focus on the titular character and Phoenix as that character. The director is also discussed, but to a lesser degree. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: 'of the same name' is exactly what has been used in various other articles. @Erik: Film articles in general list the film creatives before the film actor. I cannot even think of an example of an article that states its stars before its director/screenwriters....--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the essay I linked to...? JOEBRO64 19:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I do agree with DMH we should be listing the key creatives before Phoenix; as I said before, without them you don't have the movie. The current lede in no way does not comply with WP:LEAD. JOEBRO64 19:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Reviews

Add this review please, IGN gave the film 10/10 and called it a masterpiece https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/08/31/joker-movie-review I'd add them myself but the article is locked and doesn't even allowed flagged edits (I think IGN in particular as a website influence by video games is more in tune with comic book movies than other mainstream critics that are notable enough to be listed on Metacritic). Add other reviews too, it is always a good idea to add a review from Variety. Other reviews such as the review from RogerEbert.com are more critical of the story and borrowed ideas. I'd add it myself already if the article wasn't locked. -- 109.78.193.37 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Right now the reviews section seems to give more weight to negative reviews than would be appropriate (3 vs 3), which is clearly not in line with the overall high ratings that the film has received so far. Perhaps more positive reviews should be added to address that. There is also a question of whether some negative reviews were written in good faith (after all, Stephanie Zacharek for instance is notable for his/her positive reviews of Ghostbusters (2016) and The Last Jedi, which raises doubts about objectivity and/or quality of work as a reviewer), i.e., whether they focus on artistic merits of the film itself rather than being dictated by political considerations. I don't know how Wikipedia handles such situations; I would assume that it wants to be perceived as a neutral source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.240.240.10 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Done most critics praise Phoenix performance, while panning Philips direction.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted this as it introduced WP:SYNTH and bad grammar. The section is still "under construction", so it's going to change quite a bit over the next few weeks. The issue should be resolved by the time the film is out. JOEBRO64 19:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I dont agree with your revert, I consider it arbitrary. But you are right in one point the film have not been aired. Despite most critics show it was a Good film.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on DC Comics characters

Sure, but it is first and foremost based on the Joker. Batman vs. Superman had many superheroes involved, so this makes sense there, but Joker is a standalone film on the title character. I also don't see "based on DC Comics characters" among the proposals in the previous discussion, much less a consensus. Also, for what's worth, WP:The problem with elegant variation is an essay, and WT:The problem with elegant variation#"Of the same name" noted that it did not reflect common practice. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear from the lede and the title of the article that it's based primarily on the Joker. I think including "based on DC Comics characters" in the lead prose informs the reader of the origin of the character and also that there are other DC characters involved, which there are. Are you proposing that this be deleted? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Based on the DC Comics character Joker" or "...DC Comics character of the same name" conveys the origin of the character either way. It should be fairly obvious other DC Comic characters will be a part of the film considering the origin of the main basis. What is the film? Joker. What is it based on? The character Joker. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @DeluxeVegan: it should be {{based on|[[Joker (character)|Joker]]|[[DC Comics]]}}, like Spider-Man: Far From Home is based on Spider-Man, Aquaman is based on Aquaman an so on. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Then articles like Batman Begins and the rest of the Dark Knight trilogy should be changed too. From "Characters by DC Comics" to "Batman by Bob Kane" or something like that. El Millo (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it probably needs to be changed, but the lead of that article already reads, "Based on the DC Comics character Batman...". DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I know, I'm talking about the Infobox. El Millo (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with MHSFUY here. It's crystal clear that this is primarily about the Joker, and it reflects the official billing (which should generally be what we base our listings on). We also need to establish early on that Phoenix is playing the Joker. JOEBRO64 18:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the same logic be applied to pretty much every other cine-comic then? Like every Marvel film should have "based on Marvel Comics characters". IMHO we should list the titular character, like it has been done in almost every cine-comic. Take for example Man of Steel: in the lede it says "Man of Steel is a 2013 superhero film based on the DC Comics character Superman" but in the infobox it still says "based on Superman by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because other articles do it that way, doesn't mean it's the best way or that it controls what we do here. If I had to guess, I'd say that the Superman, Spiderman, etc articles are slightly different because these are seen as the primary character of their medium. The Joker has always been an antagonistic second-tier character to Batman. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that reasoning. The film doesn't involve Batman in any major way, from what one sees of the promotional material. Joker is based on the Joker, simple as that. Also, while billing may be considered for ordering cast, we have no obligation to follow it blindly per WP:FILMCAST, and I assume this can be considered to apply here too. DeluxeVegan (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Todd Phillips refers to the 'far left'

His entire quote: “What’s outstanding to me in this discourse in this movie is how easily the far left can sound like the far right when it suits their agenda. It’s really been eye opening for me.”

--

so he is comparing them to the far right. this context should be included rather than what currently exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.255.230 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

Change film budget from $55m to $64m

Joker's (2019) budget is listed here on wikipedia as $55m based on a 2018 article from the Hollywood Reporter. Six hours ago, The Hollywood Reporter published this article (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/box-office-preview-joker-eyes-record-80m-october-harvest-1244659) where they confirmed the budget is at least $64m or higher

"The generally well-reviewed movie cost at least $64 million to produce before marketing. Village Roadshow Pictures, Warners' longtime partner, and Bron Studios, each have a stake in the film, which made the rounds at the fall film festivals in search of awards glory. Phoenix in particular has drawn praise for his performance." Tobias031192 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tobias031192:  Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of a review from the critical reception section

I edited the critical reception of this page to exclude a review made by someone who works for DC, but one particular Wikipedia user kept reverting my edit and provided no justifiable or substantial reason for doing so, instead just insisting that the review was relevant because the reviewer was a well known critic. The line I removed was as follows;

"DC Comics chief creative officer Jim Lee praised the film as "intense, raw and soulful," and stated that it remained true to the character despite deviating from the source material."

I do not understand why this is even an issue, it seems very clear cut to me. First of all, a "creative officer" is NOT a critic and his review has no place or relevance on this page. He is an artist, writer, editor and a publisher, no where in his job description does it mention that he is a critic or that he is qualified to be a critic and he is not employed by a newspaper, journal or critical publication. Second and most importantly, as I've mentioned thrice before, showing the review of someone who literally works for the company that made the movie is a MAJOR conflict of interest. DC Comics, Films and Entertainment are all owned by Warner Bros, who made the movie so showing the review of an employee of the company just doesn't make sense. It's pretty simple to understand that a person who is employed by the company that made the movie would have or have to have a biased view of the movie. In conclusion, since he is not a critic and it is a clear conflict of interest, I vote for this review to be removed.

KingNJB (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Lee had nothing to do with this movie. He works for DC Comics. The movie was made by Warner Bros. They're part of the same conglomerate, sure, but they're otherwise completely separate.

2. It is noteworthy commentary because Lee is noteworthy. He's written many comics featuring Batman and the Joker, so it's clear that he would have a valid opinion on this film.

3. Creatives commenting on adaptations of their works is extremely common and often noted in Wikipedia articles. We discuss at the Rambo what the author of the book liked about the movies and what Stephen King thought about adaptations of his books, for instance. This isn't violating WP:OSE either—there's precedent that this is fine.

JOEBRO64 16:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with KingNJB that the review does not belong since the person is not a critic. We have plenty of actual film critics to quote. It's not just a conflict of interest, but the appearance of one. If Jim Lee is a DC Comics chief creative officer, it is very easy to assume that his review won't be as impartial as film critics' own. Even when we quote authors about adaptations of their source material, it should be done with care and very much outside a "Critical reception" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

So what if they're not a critic? In addition to explicitly saying he's not a critic, the passage is at the end of the section, so contextually it's clear that his opinion should be treated separately. We wouldn't exclude the fact that Donald Trump liked The Dark Knight Rises because he's not a critic. JOEBRO64 18:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, your argument makes no sense.

1.) Stephen King is simply the author of a book that inspired the creation of a movie. While Stephen King's opinion of the film would certainly be valid, (since he is the creator of the source material for the movie, which Jim Lee is not of in this case) it would not be under the critical reception section of the page. There is no direct conflict of interest for Stephen King because is not employed by the production company of the movie or for a company that is the direct subsidiary of the production company that is making the movie, and regardless, his review would not be included in the critical reception section of a movie because he is not a CRITIC and neither is Donald Trump. They do not fit the description of the job, so their opinion is invalid and irrelevant with respect to the critical analysis of the movie. It's as simple as that, so yes we would exclude Donald Trump's review of The Dark Knight from being placed on its Wikipedia page and we would especially exclude it from being in the critical reception section.

2.) As I said, he works for DC Comics which is owned by Warner Bros. No movie studio in their right mind would allow or like their employees to go around running off their mouth about their dislike of a movie their bosses (whether direct or otherwise) have made, so he wouldn't do it even if he didn't like the movie. Also, (and I could be wrong about this) but per my research I have not found Jim Lee to be a credited contributor to any Batman storyline involving the Joker or any standalone one featuring the character, not that that's relevant in the slightest, but I'm just pointing it out. But back to conflict of interest, the same way Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's reviews wouldn't be included on the critical reception section of a Marvel or a DC movie, an editor of a comic book should not have his opinion shown here either. KingNJB (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The filmmakers would have gotten King's permission to make an adaptation of a book he wrote, and he'd most definitely be involved as a consultant (e.g. over changes they made to the story). He's been pretty vocal about how he doesn't like the film version of The Shining, which is noted in The Shining article. And again, Lee's opinion is notable. Batman: Hush was one of the most important and celebrated Batman stories of the last 20 years, and he's also known for All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder, Harley Quinn, Superman/Batman, just to name a few. Also, Jack Kirby was dead by the time his works were adapted and AFAIK Stan Lee rarely commented on what he thought of movies. JOEBRO64 18:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong, IMO, with including commentary by professionals involved in some capacity, i.e. people who have worked with the character. That said, my understanding is that Lee is an artist not a writer, and the comments removed are not particularly enlightening. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Insert of 'increased police presence in theaters'

Because of the backlash against the movie having a perse of 'mass shootings' rumoured to be, some locations have had police involvement in their theaters during opening weekend, at the very least. Was wondering if we could include that into the social aspect of the article's reactions, if by all means notable for inclusion. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's currently mentioned in the release section of the article. If you find anything you feel is worth adding that would probably be the best place. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Link

Somebody wikilink DC Black Label in the last section. 2601:602:9200:1310:7508:CCF9:8D21:B6A4 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, because DC Black and Black Label are separate things. JOEBRO64 12:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

the length problem

Per Wikipedia:Article size, an article that tops 100K "Almost certainly should be divided". Given that as a thumbnail, it certainly appears that at 111K the page is markedly overlong for a film that — as of the moment I type this — was released two days ago.

I would enjoy seeing discussion as to how this article can be cut or divided (maybe both), which will only become more pointed as the article continues to swell under the weight of the film's wider dissemination.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Only readable-prose size counts. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This. Heck, based only on eyeballing things when scrolling, the references alone seem to be around a third of the page. Alphius (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Previous record holder for "Biggest IMAX international opening weekend in October"

The row in the records table for that record gives a monetary amount, but not the name of the movie. Considering the identical content of the "Previous record holder details" cells for that row and for "Biggest IMAX opening weekend in October (U.S. and Canada)," was the previous record holder Doctor Strange? Or was the amount just accidentally copied from the cell above? It doesn't make sense that there could be details for the previous record holder without it being known what the previous record holder was. Alphius (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed

Records section → List of box office records set by Joker. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it needs to be split. There's only 5,000 words in the article and the records are like 6 rows. I've worked on multiple articles in the 11,000 word range, this one is relatively small. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see the benefit in this. If anything, I think we should convert the infobox into prose and work it into the box office section. JOEBRO64 19:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does it need to be split? It really only broke one record, biggest opening in an October. The other records listed are just variations on that single one. -192.107.156.196 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Man, no. Completely unnecessary to split out that little portion.[1]. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to remove the template then. Thank you all for your feedbacks! I wish you a nice day. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Moore's review

Michael Moore's review of this film may be worth considering. 76.189.141.37 (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The relevance of writer's and non critics comments being added in the Critical reception section has already been discussed above and a consensus was reached to not add them.

KingNJB (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a consensus. You and Erik had a problem with it, while DWB and I didn't. That's WP:NOCONSENSUS, so the WP:STATUSQUO is retained. JOEBRO64 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DWB's comment was as follows;

"There is nothing wrong, IMO, with including commentary by professionals involved in some capacity, i.e. people who have worked with the character. That said, my understanding is that Lee is an artist not a writer, and the comments removed are not particularly enlightening"

Michael Moore has not worked on anything related to the Joker or the Batman franchise so he did not in fact agree with. You shouldn't try totwist the facts when they are not in your favour. A consensus was reached. Everyone agreed besides you. KingNJB (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

DWB's comment was as follows;

"There is nothing wrong, IMO, with including commentary by professionals involved in some capacity, i.e. people who have worked with the character. That said, my understanding is that Lee is an artist not a writer, and the comments removed are not particularly enlightening"

Michael Moore has not worked on anything related to the Joker or the Batman franchise so he did not in fact agree with. You shouldn't try totwist the facts when they are not in your favour. A consensus was reached. Everyone agreed besides you. KingNJB (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How am I twisting the facts? You're the one who's not following protocol. DWB clearly said there wasn't a problem with including it, he just also said that Lee's commentary wasn't very interesting. Moore is definitely a notable industry figure, so his commentary is valid. There isn't a consensus, so the status quo is retained. JOEBRO64 00:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Industry reception section provides relevant information as is (with MM's review). Transfo47 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Joker (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Joker (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

On September 22, a scene depicting a violent protest filmed at the Church Avenue station (IND Culver Line) in Kensington, Brooklyn, although the station was modified to look like the Bedford Park Boulevard station in The Bronx. Filming of violent scenes also took place at the abandoned lower platform of the Ninth Avenue station in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.TechGuyatNY (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Polarizing" or "Positive" Reviews?

Is the article's headline that this movie received "positive reviews" as a whole all that accurate? Ample references to the film's strongly polarizing reception can be found easily online, (or here, etc.) and many of the reviews of the film were strongly negative. Critical reviews have portrayed it as justifying the Joker's cause, arguing that the violence displayed in it is "replusive" and numbing, and alleging that it casts stigma on those with mental illness. I request we change its description to polarizing, as I believe it more accurately describes the movie's reception. ZiplineWhy (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point, but if 82 out of 109 professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes (75%) gave the film a positive reviews, you can't say that the film got a polarizing reception. That's excessive. If the % goes down to like 60%, then it could be appropriate to talk about polarizing, but as of now, it's fairly a positive reception. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The film has received a few extremely negative reviews, but that pales in comparison to the amount of positive reviews. The distribution of both sentiments aren't equal, so we can't say the critical consensus is "polarizing". DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's dropped to 58% on Metacritic and 70% on Rotten Tomatoes as more reviews have poured in, and a majority of its reviews are mixed or negative, so I went ahead and changed it to "polarizing" in the lead. FYI. ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rotten Tomatoes score has now dropped to 69% and the Metacritic score is at 57. Several well revered media outlets such as The Guardian, The Washington Post and many others have extremely negative reviews for the film, so yes I agree, "polarizing" is more than fair for this film. KingNJB (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's still "certified fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes at 70%. 70% of critics, 283 critics, out of 407, reviewed the film positively. Polarizing, by definition, would suggest something other than that the majority reviewed it positively. What is the source for "a majority of its reviews are mixed or negative?" In addition, the dichotomy of the high user scores on the previously mentioned metrics and IMDb is worth exploring.Transfo47 (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the edit looks better and more representative of the fact that the overwhelming majority (now 299/436) reviewed the film positively. However, starting the line with "some critics" is weird wording and doesn't actually address what the majority thought. Like @Mazewaxie said, only when we get to ~60% can we start talking about "polarizing." As of now, it's hovering between 69-70%. This isn't polarizing. Other films with 65% on the Tomatometer are addressed as positive in their reception sections. This original "polarizing" edit was made in haste. It's mathematically inappropriate, as long as it stays above 65% or so. Transfo47 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Joe. The current version is something I think we can all agree is fair and accurate with regards to the current perception of the film. I don't believe there's a need for any further changes, at least until a renewed interest in the film occurs (bound to happen in Oscar season). Transfo47 (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Guys, the word you're looking for is "polarized", not "polarizing". A film is polarizing, its reviews are polarized. Popcornduff (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording, The film received generally positive, albeit polarized, reviews is the solution. It's mealy-mouthed, and sort of contradictory - generally positive but polarized? It resists easy understanding, a sentence that's trying to have it both ways. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honestly, at this point, it's been 5 days since the film released, and it's still at 69-70% 299/436. I think it needs to be "mostly positive" at this point. It's not polarizing among professional reviewers. The topics the film deals with are controversial, and thus the film by extension is, but the actual cinematic merit of the film is largely (70%) uncontested by professional critics. Transfo47 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The polarizing is mostly used to refer to the topics the film deals with. Phoenix's is perfomance received worldwide praise, but the film, it's tone and it's subject matters definitely did not. KingNJB (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The source also clearly supports the claim that the movie was divisive and critics had conflicting opinions on the film. KingNJB (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No. This is turning into an edit war. The film, overall, is not polarizing. It is hovering between 68-70% on the Tomatometer, not the main-character-performance-meter. The previous standard specified was 60% for polarizing, it's nowhere near that. You have no empirical evidence that certain aspects were criticized by the majority of professional reviewers. Citing specific articles that do does not constitute "polarizing." In addition, the critics consensus does not only mention Phoenix's performance, but also the "chillingly plausible origin story" and "a dark evolution for comics-inspired cinema." That is referring to the film as a cinematic work and not a specific performance. The average of all reviews is 7.3/10. This isn't polarizing. There's just no grounds to even call it that barring a significant drop in scores. After all, you said "You do not try to pick out one negative review out of a thousand positive ones and include negative reviews, giving them as much importance as the positive ones..." And "Whoever is changing this review round up, kindly provide a valid justification for posting blatanly [sic] inaccurate views not reflected by anything a majority of the reviewers posted..." Also, your edit history consists of adding negative reception to DC films and removing negative reception for Marvel films. This calls into question WP:NPOV, and more users should weigh in on this to reach a consensus on polarizing/positive.Transfo47 (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Biggest September Monday and Tuesday

Several users are reverting the edit which suggests that Joker beat both the September Monday and Tuesday records, once held by It - which is referring to the September-October window, wherein Anthony D'Alessandro stated on October 8, 2019: "Joker beats Venom‘s Monday record from last year of $9.63M. The pic’s four-day run including previews stands at $105.9M. Joker also beats September Monday B.O. record, which is owned by New Line/Warner Bros.’ It ($8.76M)." The following day D'Alessandro wrote, on Deadline.com, that: "Joker also bested a slew of other Tuesday autumn records as well: Similar to its Monday, Joker yesterday came in ahead of the highest September Tuesday, which belongs to It ($11.4M), and when compared to November Tuesdays, the pic is second behind The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($15.96M)."

The links are as follow: https://deadline.com/2019/10/joker-box-office-monday-october-record-1202755074/
https://deadline.com/2019/10/joker-box-office-monday-october-record-1202755074/

--Bartallen2 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don’t get it. It’s not a September release, so it can’t be the biggest September Monday; I think you may just need reading into it too literally. I think Deadline was just mentioning It's Monday gross record for context of how big Joker is, not saying it now owns the record. TropicAces (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Deadline mentions how Joker broke the autumn record - it's an autumn record from September to October, which is what I've been stating - it's all in the article. The biggest Monday in September history was broken by It at $8.8 million, breaking the $6.37 million Monday record held by The Sixth Sense since 1999; the article is referring to the September-October window. --Bartallen2 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to include box office records that specific on Wikipedia articles? Any "best September-October" record would inherently be held either by the movie with the best September record or the movie with the best October record, so I'm not sure it really adds much. It effectively amounts to just saying that the best October record is higher than the best September record, period. (And regardless, unless I'm misunderstanding something, including "in autumn history" in the name of the record seems redundant.) Alphius (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Critical Reception: Correction or Nitpick?

I'm not sure whether this is a relevant issue or not, but I am frequently irritated by Wikipedia citing, "Rotten Tomatoes lists an approval rating of X% based on Y# reviews", because I consider it an inaccurate statement: as a review aggragator, RT takes in reviews from critics and audiences alike, and as films like Bright demonstrate, reviews by professional critics and paying audiences can differ substantially for reasons unrelated to the film's content. In this case, the Wikipedia article reads, "On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 68% based on 458 reviews, with an average rating of 7.29/10," but this presents the film's rating by professional critics as the website's singular rating for the film, when in fact, the audience rating is at 90%, or 4.5/5 stars. The "approval rating" that Wikipedia mentions is based on 462 reviews (currently) by professional critics, versus 31,619 reviews from audiences, which means that this 68% "approval rating" is based on less than 1.5% of the total number of submitted reviews. While I did consider that the information is posted under the heading "Critical Reception", and thus may not warrant audience receptions, it's worth noting that the first paragraph of the section ends, "Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, while those at PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 84%"; this seems to indicate that audience reception is warranted in the "Critical Reception" section. And, if that's the case, then a 68% rating from RT is incorrect: the film should be listed as holding a 68% critical rating (in comparison to a 90% audience rating and a 79% average rating). The Metacritic score, comparatively, is indicated as coming specifically from "58 critics", and while its audience score is sitting at 9.3/10, the Wikipedia article makes an effort to distinguish Metacritic's rating as being derived from professional critics, and not including audience receptions. An "average" approval rating might be calculated at ~79% (between 68% critics and 90% audiences), or the information might be rephrased to account for this difference ("...the film holds an approval rating of 68% with critics (based on 458 reviews) and 90% with audiences (based on 31,619 reviews), with an average..."). Ultimately, however, as I said at the start, this may not be a big enough issue for anyone other than me to worry about, it's just a pet peeve of mine, and with so much controversy surrounding this movie, I thought it would be a good opportunity for some sincere transparency in these "ratings" displays and comparisons. It's not an important change, but I believe it's one worth consideration: there is a vast difference in the authoritative positions and powers of paid film critics and paying audiences, which leads to vast differences in taste and preference. Films like Joker and Bright, whether intentionally or inadvertently, often manage to highlight these differences, often resulting in deep differentials between ratings. Food for thought. (Apologies if it is a nitpick, after all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.143.130 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The section is about critical response, not audience. Also audience score isn't reliable on websites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, because of review bombing, unlike CinemaScore and PostTrack that are reliable. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "about critical response, not audience," I believe I addressed that already, and am interested to know why CinemaScore and PostTrak qualify as "critical response" when they're measures of public audience satisfaction (and not sarcastically: I looked into them a little but couldn't quickly and easily figure them out so I gave up, quitter that I am; "reliable" and "critical" aren't really synonymous here, so is it something about their methodology or technique?). However, review bombing is a phenomenon I hadn't considered, and that point is duly noted. Still...does it not seem generally prudent to mention that the information Wikipedia is referencing from Rotten Tomatoes (et al) is provided by professional critics and not public audiences, particularly when CinemaScape and PostTrak are included in the same section as, quote, audiences polled, unquote? That seems quite contradictory to me (though I know my understanding is hardly relevant to the article's layout). While I'm willing to acknowledge that I hadn't factored in human jerkosity, I believe it's unfair to characterize all audience ratings as "inherently compromised", so to speak, and that the "paid critics vs. paying audiences" issue remains a valid factor in ratings evaluations; isn't it fair, then, to ask whether the RT citation should be more specific than it is? I don't mean to belabour the point, but I do think it's a valuable and revealing social distinction that's worthy of identification, especially because it's a not-entirely-uncommon occurrence (as we've seen with Bright, at least).142.13.29.93 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, I feel this is more a question for the film wiki project rather than the Joker movie itself, since this seems to be a problem with the way the critical reception section is formatted and worded than the film itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

CinemaScore and PostTrack use statistical methods of error reduction so as to accurately represent the audience reaction as much as possible. There is no such oversight for Rotten Tomatoes' audience score. Given the sample size of 33,547 (as of this comment) out of, say, 1 million (a very conservative estimate of number of people who saw the movie), Rotten Tomatoes' user score has an accuracy of less than 5% when applied to the 1 million people. Given that there were probably more than 1 million people who saw the movie, it's even less accurate than my estimate. DonQuixote (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: the film wiki project, I agree, and apologize for making it an issue here. It wasn't my intention to soapbox, it's more an issue that I stumbled into, and don't wish to belabour the point any further than I have. Re: CinemaScore and PostTrak, the links (which may have been added after my first comment, I'm not sure, but if so, thank you) took me to their respective pages. I found them very informative, and I took in an article at Vox about Rotten Tomatoes' ratings system, as well. While I'm not sure what is meant here by "accuracy"—first, because my initial use of the word wasn't intended to imply that critics were "wrong" and users (as in, non-critic viewers who submit reviews) were "right", only that the critical rating alone didn't reflect the depth and breadth of audience responses to the film; and second, because, in as much as 33k is indeed less than 5% of 1m (~3% and falling as viewership rises), I don't think that the inaccuracy of both critical and user review numbers against the total number of viewers (everybody loses?) is a strong argument—I can see that the issue is under far more consideration than I realized. So that's pretty good for that, then; I hope I'm not far off-base about this, and that some of the wordings and data presentations here really can be rearranged to greater clarity (rather than just being a poor reader myself). Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate the time y'all took to respond. 206.45.143.130 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

What's meant by "accuracy" is that the actual audience score can be anywhere between 5% to 95% (order of magnitude estimation here) rather than the 90% Rotten Tomatoes audience score. That is to say, the real audience score of 1 million plus viewers can actually be 5% rather than 90% (so a large error in representation). Conversely, a higher level of accuracy can result in a range like 85% to 95%. That is to say, the real score might be 93% so the 90% listed is close enough to the real value. Again, because of the lack of any oversight, Rotten Tomatoes user scores have a low level of accuracy. DonQuixote (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

My Joker (2019 film) edits

I replaced my edits because I disagree with your reason for removing them. The final paragraph of the plot section was TOO concise in that it was confusing. The small amount of detail I added makes it easier for readers to understand the sequence of events. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are some examples of the problems your edit introduces:

• The audience panics and runs out of the theater while riots break out in Gotham after Arthur's arrest. The audience panicking and running out of the theatre is not important to the plot; the important part is that riots break out across the city.
• Arthur is taken to Arkham This is unnecessary (and isn't shown in the film anyway); by saying At Arkham, readers will understand that the Joker is now at Arkham. That's what "At Arkham" means.
• In the final scene You don't need to tell readers it's the final scene. Same goes for the first scene. Or the second. Or the fiftieth. Not relevant. Doesn't aid understanding of plot. And...
• Arthur is taken to Arkham where he leaves bloody footprints. Arthur laughs to himself and tells his psychiatrist she would not understand the joke. In the final scene, Arthur runs from orderlies at the far end of a hall. This whole thing is out of sequence. He has the scene with the psychiatrist, then leaves bloody footprints. Popcornduff (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you with the possible exception of your final point (I may have remembered the scene incorrectly). I'm inclined to replace my edits in the coming days unless you can come up with better reasoning. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Popcornduff's edits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. JOEBRO64 23:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You're gonna need a better reason than "I disagree". The reasons that Popcorn has listed are valid and well stated. Counter his points with suggestions and come to an agreement rather than just saying you disagree. Come up with better reasoning. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Filming:

In this part of the Article there is a sentence that begins "Filming of violent scenes..." It has been repeated in the same paragraph, but I was unable to amend it because of the semi-protected nature of said Article. Needs intervention from an editor. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

List more songs.

Add more to the list of songs in this film, for example, "White Room" -Cream, and "Rock 'n' Roll (Part 2)" -Gary Glitter. https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2019-10-04/joker-soundtrack-every-song/ https://screenrant.com/joker-movie-soundtrack-songs/ The soundtrack plays a huge part in the movie and I think it should possibly have it's own article. I see now that someone has added "Rock 'n' Roll" to the list of songs but I think the amazing soundtrack should get more recognition. Sindri04 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Are Op/Eds RS?

The sentence "Its depiction of the Joker has been described as reminiscent of those who commit mass shootings in the United States as well as members of the online incel community." is cited with op/eds. Are those reliable sources? This is an encyclopedia, do we care about opinions (one of which is in a non notable source)? 192.107.156.196 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they are reliable sources and have been vetted. JOEBRO64 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Budget range

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Bosco685: Any numbers reported by industry sources should be noted in the article; that's why it's called a range. Just because you don't think it should doesn't mean that it shouldn't. JOEBRO64 18:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: No, not when it is only one individual who in the very same sentence declares everyone else is reporting in the $60 (+) million range. And it is only Deadline's one reporter that stated this number compared to everyone else.

The Deadline article says "We hear Joker cost $70M before global P&A of $120M, but others contend that its net cost is in the low $60M range." It is saying its sources are saying one figure, while its others are saying another. On top of that, this is a cut-and-dry issue, as Wikipedia’s own guidelines state: "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." TropicAces (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@Bosco685: didn’t think we’d need to address this after you were blocked for the very same thing but I’ll reiterate: Wikipedia’s own guidelines state to list all given budgets. Box Office Mojo doesn’t have hierarchy over every other publication, you still put the range. Look at something like Bohemian Rhapsody; Box Office Mojo lists it as $52 million, but since other sites have as low as $50 or high as $55, the range gets listed as costing $50–55 million. Same deal here. Some have the $55 million figure, although others go as high as $64 million or $70 million. So they get listed. It’s cut-and-dry. Appreciate your enthusiasm about this page but rules are rules (also tagging WhiteAngel and TheJoebro64 since they reverted each other on this topic).TropicAces (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Actually the block was because TropicAces and TheJoebro64 kept reverting my updates. Not specifically about the content itself. And since I am actively trying to collaborate with you both though seeing how you attempt to hide behind a loose Wikipedia rule (EX: same is not the case with Avengers: Endgame (2019 film), that is not being consistent. Not sure what your intent here is other than now you are forcing an approach on anyone involved. Not just me.:: @WhiteAngel: is now another member involved now with this selective rules philosophy. You should step back and think this through.

@TropicAces: Box Office Mojo is such a source of truth with studio box office reporting, if it can't validate details with the studio it doesn't post such information. That is why with films like Black Panther and Captain Marvel they never published a production budget final tally as the studio wouldn't report the details. This is why when Box Office Mojo does report a production budget in the end, it is because it has been thoroughly vetted in advance. @WhiteAngel: may be aware of this practice as well.

Bosco685 may be right about this. If the production figures aren't confirmed, Box Office Mojo doesn't publish them, so if they added the "$55 million" it should be the official budget. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There are times BOM will give the budget reported by the studio, but it is then revealed from tax releases and/or leaked inside documents that they were incorrect. Example off the top of my head is The Mummy, which they listed as $125 million but it is now accepted among the industry that it actually cost $195 million. Not sure anywhere on Wikipedia’s guidelines it says ignore the “Don't nitpick source budgets, list a range” rule and trust BOM as gospel. TropicAces (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAves

@TropicAces:I think at this point you are going out of your way to ensure what you want is what you get. That's not being collaborative. Starting with the snide comment above "didn’t think we’d need to address this after you were blocked for the very same thing". Be friendlier about these differences. Multiple sources were already stating a $55 million production budget before Box Office Mojo posted its update on 10/11/19. So now that the reporting system of truth is acknowledging $55 million, all you are doing is fixating on Deadline's one (1) reporter saying he heard $70 million. And a single situation with The Mummy where the studio misrepresented its data is a single situation - not the norm. Everyone else trusts in Box Office Mojo. What are you after here, other than wanting things your way?

It’s nothing to do with my way, it’s literally the guidelines presented by Wikipedia; one single source does not take precedent over all others. And The Mummy was one example of them low-balling other estimates. Others include Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Hitman's Bodyguard, Transformers: The Last Knight, Gigli, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, Why Him?... TheWrap said Joker cost $64 million, Variety said “just under $70 million” and Deadline has its $70M figure. I’m not saying BOM is not a reliable source, that’s not my argument here, I’m just saying they often lowball or go with the safe consensus, and that’s not what Wikipedia calls for. TropicAces (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Sorry, but it does come across a little excessive how you and one other are trying to force your standard, as if you speak for Wikipedia. This is a collaboration education system. And as I pointed out with the most recent comic book box office hit (Avengers: Endgame), once Box Office Mojo finalized a production budget number the $356 million to $400 million estimate because a solid $356 million. Please. Stop trying to force this, as it is becoming very passive-aggressive now versus a knowledge partnership. More than myself is calling this out now. Thank you.

Please don't make false accusations that TropicAces is not being collaborative. That is not assuming good faith and uncivil. I think TropicAces is spot on. BOM is reliable but not the Bible when it comes to budgets. Since sources are conflicted on the actual budget, we should reflect that. Template:Infobox film is pretty clear about that. JOEBRO64 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Bosco685 I’m literally, merely stating the written guidelines of Wikipedia, and providing examples that you yourself asked for. If that’s passive-aggressive or trying to force an agenda then that’s all being perceived purely on your end. As for as your Endgame example, the $356 million actually (ironically) originated from Deadline and their breakeven projection following the opening weekend; BOM didn’t break new ground there. TropicAces (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TheJoebro64:False accusations? Not really. The two of you have made it a very disruptive situation with information that is readily available and clear the most recent films on Wikipedia have followed the trend once Box Office Mojo publishes a vetted number, that is the number. Because it is the defacto source of truth in the industry (see above where clear examples are provided where Box Office Mojo refused to post a production budget when it couldn't validate with the studio).

@TropicAces:If not for others realizing how disruptive the approach is with yourself and TheJoebro64, you would have a leg to stand on. Avengers: Endgame has a number of sites noting the budget is between $350 million to $400 million including Screen Rant. I'm literally just trying to follow the same approach with Joker, as are others co-contributors. As far as you providing examples, they are all reporting sites with no final number confirmed by the studios. That's not 'clear examples'. That's continued restating those sites's estimates, and taking them as fact. Box Office Mojo only posts production budget numbers once it has been vetted with the studios. So no, it is not just my perception.

This is getting to the point of WP:IDHT. We are not being disruptive, you're calling us disruptive to discredit us and try and force your own narrative. BOM is not the be all/end all for budgets. They make mistakes. There is not a single budget reliable sources agree upon, so we list a range. It's as simple as that. JOEBRO64 11:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64:Show me where Box Office Mojo itself made a mistake versus a studio misrepresenting a number. Neither of you have. I agree, this is getting to the point of being WP:IDHT. The two of you are now trying to force this to be the way you want it, and pretending you are just upholding Wikipedia's standard. But honestly, it is just passive-aggressive behavior now. Be better than that.

@TheJoebro64: :: @TropicAces: If the two of you want to be more friendly and collaborative with this content (and other subjects in the future) going forward, I am all for that. No reason for a single film to become a point of friction. Just please stop the selective 'rules enforcement' you both are fixated on right now. Better we all work together on building out a great research and reading source for the wider community.

References

I'm only observing this from a cursory point but Bosco, where is this editorial policy for BOM that says it has vetted figures? Who is vetting them? How are they vetting them. Never, in all the film articles I've worked on, has anyone said "go to BOM, their figures are carved into stone like the ten commandments". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:Box Office Mojo has been one of the most recognized film reporting analystics sites for years, alongside BoxOfficePro and The-Numbers. All three are known to avoid bias, and report on what they can validate from studios. Which is why when they can't confirm data, they won't post it. I've been tracking comic book film reporting for years, and it has been that way throughout. Thanks for the question.

I feel at this point, we either need to vote on a consensus or bring in a third-party to decide for us. It pretty much all comes down to if you think BOM is never incorrect with their budgets and we should disregard all other industry publications, or do we follow the guidelines established by Wikipedia for the infobox, not cherry-pick, and list a range? And Bosco685, as far as any hostility goes, it was never typed or intended with any ill-intent so if I came across that way I apologize (this is only a Wikipedia article after-all, life will go on haha) TropicAces (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces:First off, again I am all about collaboration and being friendly. Even after TheJoebro64 and you reporting me to the administrators. It is what it is. We move forward in a respectful and friendlier manner. But if we are going to alter practices now, that goes for all films reflected on Wikipedia. To include Avengers: Endgame now reflecting $356 million to $400 million as has been reported by multiple credible sites. That's the door being opened here to be unbiased and fair.Bosco685 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

(make sure you’re signing your posts, by the way) as far as the Endgame thing goes, that’s a different and unique circumstance as (1) ScreenRant is notoriously liberal with their box office and budget information (they think simply doubling the production budget results in a profit) and (2) that $300-400M figure they gave was a literal pre-release guess based off “we know both Infinity War films cost around $800 million to make and the first was $316-400” that pre-dated Deadline’s $356 million publication; it’s a little different than some sources post-release saying Joker cost $55, some saying $64 and others saying near $70. TropicAces (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

(learning as I go along - so appreciate the post signing suggestion). I'd say there are more than a few sites noting Avengers: Endgame was $350 to $400 million other than Screen Rant. So I wouldn't dismiss the situation that easily. Though I understand at this point you may be convinced Box Office Mojo is like a film reporting site (e.g. Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, TheWrap, ScreenRant, etc.). It isn't like those sites. Different business model and intent.Bosco685 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

Unless there is consensus on WP:FILM that a particular source is so particularly credible and the others less so, we shouldn't rely on a single source to the exclusion of others. It seems like that consensus doesn't exist, so we should quote a range instead. Popcornduff (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

An hour or so ago I searched for Joker's budget and all sources said it was $55 million, including Forbes, Express, TheWrap, IndieWire, TheNumbers, etc. El Millo (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Box Office Mojo does not take precedence over other sources. The studios report grosses, but they rarely report budgets. Most budgets are estimated (including those at BOM) unless they are audited and submitted to a government organization for tax purposes. Box Office Mojo does not have a monopoly on "correct" information; personally speaking I have found BOM to be one of the poorer sources for budget information because it rarely fixes its data when it is revealed to be inaccurate. A good example of this Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which BOM still insists only cost $250 million, even though accounts submitted to HMRC show that production costs were $379 million ($410 million before the rebate). Deadline is a reliable source and there is no reason here to exclude it in favor of Box Office Mojo. The fact is "low 60s" is not far removed from $55 million (the $55 million figure was being reported in the Summer of 2018 before the film was even made so was most likely the initial budget). The Deadline figures should be added to the article in accordance with Template:Infobox film which clearly states " If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." This is a text-book example of where the guidelines should be invoked. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:Deadline is far from the source of truth with films, though anyone would admit they do try like many of the more credible sites. One source of information where deadline reported a number early and had to retract it later was Spider-Man: Homecoming's print and advertising budget. It initially noted Disney only spent $110 million to promote the film. Months later when Deadline conducted its annual box office match-off to determine the annual highest box office successes, it had to restate this estimate at $157 million (a $47 million variance). I respect everyone has an opinion. But even Deadline makes large misses. And if we follow this Wikipedia rule which would be in accordance with Template:Infobox film which clearly states " If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range" then this means Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home all would be impacted because every one of these pages starts and stops at Box Office Mojo as the final source of truth to state production budgets. Go check them out. Better we be consistent then selective in our approach. Bosco685 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

then this means Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home all would be impacted because every one of these pages starts and stops at Box Office Mojo as the final source of truth to state production budgets—WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's not a particularly strong argument. JOEBRO64 22:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not beholden to a single source. If a source is not reliable then it isn't used at all on Wikipedia. If a reliable source is wrong about one particular thing then we don't use it for that particular thing. If multiple reliable sources say different things and there is no reason to choose one over the other on the basis of validity then we don't WP:CHERRYPICK. If the other articles are not compliant with the guidelines then hopefully the regular editors at those articles to bring them into line, just as some of the editors here are doing. Betty Logan (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64:I think you are still in the camp of acting offended anyone would suggest a different path than what you want. Relax. My point on the other films is Wikipedia has not been consistent with this rule you and TropicAces have noted as the end-all, be-all for article information. If you check the change history of those three films I noted, at one point there was a range and then once Box Office Mojo published a production budget the co-contributors came to the agreement that figure was the final total. Go check the Avengers: Endgame change history. So yes, it is a strong debate point. Just relax your hackles.Bosco685 (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

@Betty Logan:We are just having a discussion here. So I want to reinforce that message as we talk through these details. But your assumption a $15 million difference between the range is not a big deal, statistically it is a 21% variance. Bigger than even Avengers: Endgame's variance between $356 million to $400 million (11% difference) though there is a $44 million variance between the two numbers. So if we are being consistent with our contributions, then the same practices should apply :: @WhiteAngel: probably realizes this as well. But that's just me being specific and analytical versus this emotional concern a unique approach is being forced on the Joker article.Bosco685 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

@331dot: :: @Yunshui: :: @EdJohnston: Since the three of you as administrators ended up having to deal with this article situation already, a respectful ask. As has been noted above as we attempt to talk through the details other articles have used Box Office Mojo as the final source of truth for production budget details (EX: Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Spider-Man: Far From Home) and even reverted content that stated otherwise when they differed. And in the case of Avengers: Endgame with an 11% variance ($356 to $400 million) once BOM landed at $356 million that is the final result posted. In this case with Joker the variance is much broader statistically ($55 million to $70 million is a 21% variance). Yet a few co-contributors are referencing Wikipedia guidance in this situation as if that is the final mandate. Again, are attempting to talk through this yet content is still being reverted from $55 million to now confusing numbers ($55 million or $60 million to $70 million). Can we please lock that content down for now? Thank you. Bosco685 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

@TropicAces: :: @TheJoebro64: Just as an example of the selective approach here. For over 8 hours the Joker page reflected the change I had applied of $55 million production budget. So then TheJoebro64 goes in and reverts it twice to counter my changes and then :: @WhiteAngel: now with a special note now inserted "DO NOT REMOVE THE RANGE PER Template: Infobox film: "If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Think how that comes across as passive-aggressive the only numbers you wanted presented right now while we attempt to achieve consensus are the ones you want. There was no reason to reverts those entries while we talked here. It's not like anyone is making this up. It is your behavior that communicates the practices applied.Bosco685 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

I didn't "revert it twice", I restored it due to the clear consensus in this discussion being that we shouldn't take the budget from just one source which has been inaccurate in the past. It was then twice changed by WhiteAngel, who was reverted in both instances by Krimuk2.0 per WP:BRD. Then you tried to make the same edit, and I cited WP:BRD. The note is there so people don't change it until we reach consensus (and IMO we already have, you're just refusing to get the point). JOEBRO64 13:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Interesting on this 'clear consensus' when there wasn't such just yet. But through your eyes, this had occurred, IMO. I think through a lack of understanding you and a few others are missing the point though the production budget is small either way, the variance conveyed is much larger than any of you realized. But refuse to acknowledge because now your pride is factoring into this entry. Let that go.Bosco685 (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

The $55 million figure was doing the rounds in Summer 2018; this is likely what the budget was initially set at and hence the reason why it is the most widely reported figure. However, films very rarely come in on budget, with some coming in a few million below and some coming in tens of millions higher than they were budgeted. I don't see the figures as contradictory: the film was likely budgeted at $55 million and probably went slightly over-budget; a final cost of $60–70 million would be entirely consistent with that. Film production evolves over several months, sometimes years but sources generally don't and as Wikipedia editors we most always bear in mind that a source while correct at the time can become out of date. As for rebates, I have generally found sources inconsistent in how they deal with this; for example, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides cost $410 million or $380 million, depending on whether you include or exclude the rebate. There is a good argument for either approach, but neither figure is wrong depending on the perspective. If you look at the sources there are essentially two figures and a range: $55 million, "low $60m range" (we are essentially talking $60–65 million here) and Deadline's own sourced figure of $70 million. Now, technically the guidelines would permit you to write $55 million, $60–65 million, $70 million in the infobox, but $55–70 million would work just as well IMO, given the spread of numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social Commentary discussion section

@Doogooder:I wanted to ask with the edit you made to the criminologist that felt Joker was an accurate portrayal of a murderer's personality change, by cutting it down does that lose the flavor of his messaging? He was seeing it as a positive how the film could be used in his classes to educate students of his profession. To me, IMHO, by cutting it down it appears slightly negative like with all the other social concerns mentioned he was noting it was too accurate. Thoughts? And thank you for inserting the Wikilinks on his name and profession.Bosco685 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Box Office numbers section

@Mazewaxie:I :: @Evope:I Hi co-contributors. I saw your box office alterations to what I posted. The Joker domestic total is $201.99 million which rounded up is $202 million and international is $354.7 million adding up to $556.69 million rounding up to $556.7 million. No offense meant or taken. You may have missed these numbers, which is why I share this.Bosco685 (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bosco685: Your figures aren't corrent. See what I wrote on your talk page. Please return to the previous version. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie:I :: @Evope:I see what happened. Yesterday initially BOM reported the domestic as $201,990,190 and the international as $354,700,000 (worldwide total $556,690,190). At some point it updated domestic to $201,935,953 (worldwide total $556,635,953). That's where the difference is coming in. Thanks for catching this. Bosco685 (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)