Talk:Joker (2019 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

It's not the first R-rated live action Batman film

The second paragraph of the opening of this article says that Joker is "the first live-action Batman film to receive an R-rating from the Motion Picture Association of America". This is not technically true, as the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was rated R for sequences of violence. Should this statement be removed? The Editor 155 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's sourced in the article, and the theatrical version of Batman v Superman was still rated PG-13. However, I will add "theatrical" just to be safe. JOEBRO64 23:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The Editor 155 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically the R-rated version of Dawn of Justice did get a theatrical release - just a very limited one: https://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ultimate-theaters/ (I could have sworn it was a wider release than that article says, but I can't seem to find a source saying it expanded, so I might be confusing it with something else in that regard.) 75.88.82.196 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Film's Ending in Plot Summary

In Arkham, Arthur laughs to himself. The doctor asks him what's funny. He tells her she wouldn't get the joke ,and then he sings "That's Life" by Frank Sinatra as it plays along. Then he escapes. Please update it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.65.175 (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Police arrests minors watching Joker, social media storm erupts in Greece

In a nutshell: In Greece the film was deemed unsuitable for people younger than 18. Though, many schoolboys/girls attended cinemas screening the film- which is the norm in Greece. So, police raided a couple of them and arrested some boys. Social media storm erupted and it got significant coverage in the media. So...should we mention something about it? For more have a look here: euronews, Kathimerini (Kathimerini) bakaneu.com. Ofcourse greek media are covering the story. Cinadon36 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 No WP:NOTNEWS. Renamed user 2563edsdasdvas1d (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct weight loss: 15 lbs

Joaquin Phoenix's weight loss for the film has been widely misreported at >50 lbs. The sources cited are simply reprinting what they've heard elsewhere (without sourcing). Phoenix corrected this to 15 lbs in this appearance on the Tonight Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_plgHxLyCt4&t=428 Somebody please correct the wikipedia page as I don't have permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.133.219 (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2019

Joker is currently the highest grossing R rated film of all time, rather than third highest grossing Yahvuh (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 00:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore to this, would it be possible to tidy up the last sentence of the last paragraph of Reception > Box Office? It still reads, "By this point, industry analysts expected Joker to become the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time, with some suggesting that it could finish its run with over $1 billion." I know the statement isn't incorrect, but now that the film actually is the highest-grossing etc., it just seems a bit redundant.142.161.183.127 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

So I see the statement that it's the the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time has been reverted, as Forbes would be only a "singular" source supposedly contradicting BOM.

In any case, it's not just Forbes that's reporting that Joker has overtaken Deadpool 2 by now. The same is stated by Variety in three different articles already: [1], [2], [3] Variety even quotes an exact figure of "$788.1 million" that Joker has made so far, and says it's expected that by Monday, it will have surpassed $800 million. So much about a supposedly "singular" article on behalf of Forbes.

So I've been looking a bit deeper into the data. The difference seems to be that BOM has only counted the gross up to and including October 25, while Forbes and Variety are also including October 26, which accounts for the $12 million difference between them and BOM. Looking at what it's making internationally (i. e. domestic + abroad), $12 million on Saturday internationally is not too unlikely at this point. --2003:EF:13DB:3B91:4540:AD6:1DBD:8F71 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

One thing is strange, though: BOM doesn't list India among the foreign grosses for Joker[4], one of the most-populated and most movie-crazed countries in the world, even though IMDB says the film has been released there on October 2. [5] --2003:EF:13DB:3B91:4540:AD6:1DBD:8F71 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

BOM is usually missing data from many countries. All countries are still included in the international total which is not the sum of the listed countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Plot suggesting unconfirmed aspects of the movie

Certain points of the plot are described as being Arthur's "delusions"; these are not confirmed in any objective manner. Shouldn't they be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1E3:2680:5588:C521:4BD1:9483 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The plot only calls the interactions between Arthur and Sophie "delusions", which is absolutely clarified in the movie. El Millo (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Records table

I really think this should be removed. A lot of these "records" are barely even records. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)/archive1—this is the same issue. All these "records" are made through trivial intersections, and when you remove those there isn't much left. The entire section is basically a list of trivia. JOEBRO64 11:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You think this should be removed? You've already made the decision to do so. The records at hand are a list of North American and European records - all of which are included in the current box-office records on the Avengers: Endgame, Avengers: Infinity War, The Force Awakens, Black Panther, and Avatar pages, respectively. Is it because a small amount of the data is rather esoteric because of the R-rating? As I've stated, the page includes singe day grosses, opening weekds, IMAX grosses, holidays, respective-months, rating-grosses which are on those other pages, yet you state that the records - presently - are "records" --Bartallen2 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Having lists for movies like Endgame and The Force Awakens makes sense because they broke a large number of notable records. The problem here (like the Deadpool list) is that a lot of these "records" only happened through trivial intersections, therefore creating psuedo-records that hold no real significance. For instance, "Highest grossing NC16-rated film (Singapore)" is a double intersection of a rating and a country. The notable ones (e.g. highest grossing R-rated film, October release, and most profitable superhero film) can easily be covered in prose. JOEBRO64 12:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Examples of why the table should remain, are listed below: --Bartallen2 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Examples

Joker: Widest October release (U.S. and Canada) Avatar and The Force Awakens: Widest 3D release and Widest IMAX release Infinity War: Widest PG-13 release Joker: Highest October opening weekend Avatar: Highest December opening weekend Infinity War: Highest April opening weekend gross Joker: Fri - Thursday October single-days Avatar: Highest January single-day gross Black Panther: Highest-grossing February release Black Panther: Highest single-day gross for a solo superhero film Black Panther: Highest-grossing Saturday in South Africa Avatar: Highest second Tuesday gross Infinity War: Highest April and spring opening weekend gross Joker: Highest first week gross in October Avatar: Highest January weekend gross Avatar: Smallest second weekend drop for a movie opening over $50 million Infinity War: Largest gap between first and second highest-grossing films in a weekend Joker: Highest-grossing R-rated film of all time Joker: Highest grossing NC16-rated film (Singapore) Black Panther: Highest-grossing superhero film in the Netherlands Black Panther: Highest opening weekend gross for a black director Infinity War: Highest PG-13 rated opening weekend gross Infinity War: Highest-grossing foreign film Joker: Highest IMAX opening weekend in October Joker: Highest IMAX opening milestone in October Avatar: Biggest fourth-weekend IMAX gross The Force Awakens: Highest IMAX Saturday gross

I agree with the "Highest grossing NC16-rated film (Singapore)" being of a double intersectionality, however, with that indifference of the others, you should start converting the articles I made reference to above then in that case. Most of the other values - apart from obscure Signapore and Israel additions - have as much relevance to the record-table as do those to whom I've listed above --Bartallen2 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bartallen, I'm having a little trouble following you. "With that indifference of the others"? Are you just saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Popcornduff (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I went off on a tangent there ^_^ But I was referring to the other sections - the non-rating records, if you will --Bartallen2 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the table should be removed. There simply aren't enough notable records to justify a table. This is the same issue of non-notable pseudo-records that led the Deadpool list of records to not be promoted to featured list status and later turned into a redirect, the Black Panther list to not be promoted to featured list status, and the It list to be turned into a redirect. Entries such as "Highest Tuesday gross in October (U.S. and Canada)" (with a triple intersection of day of the week, month, and box office territory) are clearly post-hoc constructions designed to make Joker seem more record-breaking than it is. Indeed, I'd argue that most if not all records that require an "October" qualifier to narrow the field enough to give this film the "record" are overly narrow and fairly blatant puffery. We already cover the records that are actually notable in prose above the table. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if the October entries were removed - what a certain user had taken umbrage with was the Singapore record, being NC16 (which tantamount to R-rated within the 16-17 MPCR tier) - so if the entire record scheme was composed of rating based records there would be no issue? As I find it a tad bit hypocritical given the rating-records which were allowed for Black Panther and Infinity War, with respect to the PG-13 ratings, foreign films (for example, Joker is the highest grossing foreign film in Egypt - I've not included it), and the category of the highest grossing super-hero film in a particular country. For example, the user TheJoebro64 stated "A lot of these are non-notable psuedo-records (who cares if it's the "Highest grossing N-15 rated film in Romania"?", yet he remains indifferent to the 15+ record Joker received in the UK and Ireland, and the 16+ Israeli records; I conclude that the Romanian box office has a section on Wikipedia. But it must be stated that NC-16, R and 15 are all part of the 16-17 tiers of the Motion picture content rating system, similar to how PG/PG-13 is different in other countries. I really was referring to a presumable allowance for the term super-hero film, but not for an R-rated film? --Bartallen2 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the questionable entries from other box office records lists compelling as an argument to keep this table; I don't think the Black Panther list should exist at all for the same reason I don't think this table should, and the examples seem more of a reason to trim those lists than to keep this one (not to mention that several of those examples are records that are tracked by serious box office trackers, or at least were before Box Office Mojo redesigned their website). I don't think either month of release or rating should be the basis of a list or table like this (the Deadpool list had one of those as a qualifier for virtually all entries, which is a key reason that list was garbage). Really, the main problem with this table is that there is at present no good reason to have it as a table instead of prose. TompaDompa (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's a compelling in terms of understanding the actual standards of what has been upheld and what continues to be upheld - but I'm not only referring to Black Panther, but instead all the other record tables that exist on Wikipedia, and even more so the recent Endgame table. But nigh-all of the examples in the Joker table - for the most part -, were listed before the Box Office Mojo redesign. All of the international ratings and month/day records in prose would be too cumbersome, in comparison, would it not? And of course, the continued records that have yet to come. --Bartallen2 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's a compelling in terms of understanding the actual standards of what has been upheld and what continues to be upheld On the contrary. When community feedback has been solicited, the verdict has consistently been that these kinds of lists are indiscriminate and excessively detailed with non-notable entries (try nominating any of those lists for WP:Featured list and see the results). You're basically making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument based on other stuff that has been repeatedly rejected when subjected to greater scrutiny from the community at large.
It might be cumbersome to recount all the records in prose (though not having seen it, I'm not sure it would be worse than the table), but the thing is that we don't need to mention all those records to begin with; the records that are currently mentioned in prose are quite sufficient. At present, the table is really WP:UNDUE owing to the very large visual space it takes up to elaborate on what are some seriously niche data points. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean, Tompa; though there are only four records mentioned in the prose, I might add ~ --Bartallen2 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Budget

The budget was $62.5m ShiningAbyss (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation for your claim?QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Majority of sources say the budget is 55m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:5047:EB00:2996:BE44:5322:8858 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It could very well be both, and hence why the article uses a range. This issue is discussed in greater detail above at #Budget_range. Betty Logan (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Now it seems the final budget was finally around 62m. So, can we stop with this stupid range of 55m-70m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50FB:7900:882B:8F32:2F51:D740 (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

What is your source for that? Betty Logan (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Every media now are talking about an estimate budget of 62.5m I don't even know where is this 70m from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:50FB:7900:882B:8F32:2F51:D740 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The source in the articles tells you where the $70 million figure is from,but to cut to the chase here is the quote: "We hear Joker cost $70M before global P&A of $120M, but others contend that its net cost is in the low $60M range." As I explained above, it is likely that one is a net figure and one is a gross figure. If there are sources that confirm this then the budget can clarified accordingly, but you haven't produced any sources in this discussion so far. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Most Profitable CBM

That's a beautiful sentiment, but there is also no proof for this. Sources never say that it is the most profitable comic book movie (of all time). Note that there are no headlines about how it beat movies like Endgame or similar movies in regards to profit. What the movie managed to do is make 15.3 times its production budget as opposed to (for example) Endgame which only did so 7.85 times. That doesn't necessarily mean that the $2.798 million WW box office from Endgame translated into less profit than the $987.8 million made by this movie. Most sources refer to the Forbes article which just says the movie is "more profitable, in terms of budget versus global gross". Referring to the aforementioned 15.3 and comparing it to (among others) Vemon, which it did beat in the overall box office. Again no mention of actual profit received from the movie. BBC actually says "Endgame has made more at the box office overall, but Joker has made more in relation to what was spent to make it." So this is not the most profitable comic book movie at all or at least we don't have any proof to support that claim. There may very well be a ton of comic book movies that were more profitable in the end, but Joker had the biggest multiplier compared to its original budget. 213.127.124.119 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the term "profitable" is being misused here. First of all the claim comes from the AV Club ([6]) which has to be said isn't a premium source. Second of all, the author only compares gross-to-cost ratios, so in fact is actually talking about return on investment, not actual profit. Following this logic, I could tie my tablecloth around my neck and film myself jumping off my garden wall, and if I charge people to watch it at my local fleapit following this logic I would have made a more profitable film than Joker! If the article persists with this dubious claim it should at least qualify how "most profitable" is being defined here i.e. it has the highest return-on investment out of studio backed comic book movies, rather than attaining the biggest profit margin. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This was made even worse by the recently added comment about The Mask. I think you'll have a hard time proving that it's the most profitable comic book movie between 1994 and 2018. There is also no source for any of the above in the current version of the article. 213.127.124.119 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I just don't see why "most profitable on a budget vs. box office ratio" can't be a valid category. Directors who can pull this off are highly sought-after by studios. --2003:EF:13DB:3B01:A0CB:F82:FA65:4A04 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

See also/Joker Stairs

Could someone please add a “see also” section with similar films and the Joker Stairs? Painting17 (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Revenue Status

According To Forbes, The Film Has Grossed $1 Billion Today. () Since In My Opinion That Forbes Is A Reliable Source, Therefore, I Need To Confirm That Should I Add This Into The Main Article? Sanhok (talk) 18.50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Would be good if you removed the "Highest Grossing Film Of All Time".. it clearly is not as no one in this era wants to take into account inflation or anything of the likes. it is clearly known that GWTW is the "Highest Grossing Film Of All Time". This whole idea of not taking it into account is silly in itself as movies and the cost of things inflate EVERY year that goes by, so by the current standards it would already be inaccurate by the 30 June 2020. End of the day history is history and the best way to gain an idea of how popular a film is and was would ne to adjust for inflation in these cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.54.34 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Gary Glitter

The inclusion of his music has caused controversy. Should it not be included? It's notable. -192.107.156.196 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not really sure. It is getting some coverage, but it's nowhere near as major as the security concerns, which have basically caused a moral panic. JOEBRO64 21:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a nontroversy, the media sites are having a slow day because they thought they could by trying to incite a controversy around the film they could make something bad happen during screenings of the film. When that didn't happen they decided to focus on a song, a song that has been used in South Park and Family Guy too, so it's not like this song hasn't been used since the 80s, it's not even like it hasn't been used since Glitter was convicted. The people complaining, I am going to take a guess, have not even seen the film, because you can't sit through the entirety of Joker, get to near the end and be like "woah, this song is just too far". I will place a large bet that many of them didn't even know the song was by Glitter until some news site told them, trying to trade on the film's current popularity. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Gary Glitter - Rock And Roll used in family guy?? Although it is a cool song but... Sorry, I have see pretty much every episode multiple times and don't seem to recall it?? Perhaps the episode number and name may help?? (Absolutely 98% sure it has not been in an episode) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.54.34 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 69% based on 522 reviews, with an average rating of 7.25/10. Myselfjoker (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

horror movie ?

i think the joker film can be associated in the horror genre--77.207.75.83 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite any notable sources refering to it as a horror film?★Trekker (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Different type of film

Joker is a dram film, isn't it? Lamdatafas (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

An new “Themes & Analysis” section

I think the social commentary section under Reception should be relocated into an entirely new section called “Themes & Analysis” (similar to Mad Max: Fury Road) Due to the fact that mental illness is one of the biggest themes in the film and it’s directly stated in the Social Commentary segment of the Reception section. Kimicha218 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Introduction's mention of "real world violence"?

"Joker also generated concerns of inspiring real-world violence; the movie theater where the 2012 Aurora, Colorado mass shooting occurred during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises refused to show it."

Perhaps this can be removed, as it's not quite that notable and is listed later in the article. Kobentori (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it was a big topic of discussion even after the film was released. JOEBRO64 12:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as the event in Aurora was not even related to batman beyond happening in a theater that was playing the movie. It was falsely reported that the shooter had said he was "the Joker". In reality, he never said that. It was reported as such and the media ran with it. That was the impetus for a lot of the talk about this Joker film inciting violence. A false statement tied to a previous Batman movie. It just continues to spread misinformation. 66.26.158.118 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a false statement. It's notable because it was the forefront of the conversation regarding the film. JOEBRO64 19:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Fleck

I think Joaquin Phoenix' Joker (Arthur Fleck) has proven itself to be just as notable as Heath Ledger's Joker and by extension, worthy of its own article. In fact, a draft (that admittedly needs a lot of work) already exists. Charles Essie (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Leto

@Earthh: Let's discuss this instead of edit warring. The fact that Leto tried to get the film canceled is a notable inclusion for the development section and is reliably sourced. THR has reported on it more than once, and they got their information from industry insiders and have a proven record for doing so (and of course Leto's going to deny it; the incident makes him look like an ass). The information is attributed so it wouldn't violate WP:CRYSTAL (which is more about rumors predicting the future, hence the "crystal ball" name). Not liking it isn't a valid reason for removal. JOEBRO64 21:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

THR talks about unspecified sources whose rumors were denied or ignored by both Leto's representatives and studio executives. What you present as a fact is actually an unverifiable speculation that sounds like scandal mongering and has since been reported by multiple outlets. Kindly discuss here before reinstating any contested material - also avoiding your own personal presumption like accusing users of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, --Earthh (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not presented as fact because it's attributed to a reliable source. See WP:ATTRIBUTION. JOEBRO64 23:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment when you removed the material in question was that it was "trivial", which, yes, classifies as not liking it. JOEBRO64 23:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It is trivial because it's a speculation and, as such, it is not verifiable. --Earthh (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a faulty analogy. It's not "speculation"; it's a genuine news story from an established source with industry connections. "Speculation" would clearly not be in the article. JOEBRO64 00:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: The contested material was removed without objection on 12 January establishing a consensus per WP:SILENCE; after that, the page was edited 24 times by 18 different users and this classifies as consensus through editing (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). Before reinstating any contested material, you need to discuss here and find a new consensus. Thank you,--Earthh (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

... and it was present in the article for four months without objection. There were hundreds of edits in between by dozens of users. You're the one who suddenly had a problem with it and are completely misapplying SILENCE when, if following it correctly, it should remain in the article because there was a four-month-long period in which no one had a problem with it, which trumps a week-long "consensus" instituted by a single user (you). That is not how it works, at all. JOEBRO64 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As a long-standing feature of the article the paragraph should be restored to the article pending further discussion per WP:STATUSQUO. It is appropriately sourced to a reliable source. The guideline at WP:SPECULATION is clearly confined to speculation about the future. This paragraph is discussing what is alleged to have occurred. Fair enough, Leto's representatives deny that it did and this response is rightfully included in the article, but Wikipedia is not a press release for celebrities. If it were limited to only covering events that the subjects confirmed were true then it would be unable to serve its purpose as an encyclopedia. The only three questions we must answer here is i) it fully sourced in accordance with Wikipedia policy; ii) is it neutral?; iii) is it relevant?. I believe that the paragraph satisfies all three of those criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

On the last line of the section titled "Social impact", change "firefighters dawned Joker makeup" to "firefighters donned Joker makeup". Thanks. SourceError (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Can someone fix up the plot summary? It doesn't make sense and the grammar is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.150.70.148 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC) He doesn't date his neighbour, it's all in his imagination. We are informed of it when he GOES into the neighbours apartment and she asks him to leave. Take a close look at that scene. There is a small missing segment of the plot that is missing. Whoever wrote this forgot to mention Arthur going to Wayne Manor before attempting to entertain Bruce Wayne by doing Magic tricks and learning his name. He then forms a smile on Bruce’s face before Alfred (presumably) orders him to stop and to leave the premises. Arthur attempts to tell Alfred that he’s there for Thomas Wayne and that he is Penny’s son. Alfred states that she’s lying and is crazy causing Arthur to lash out and try to strangle him before looking at Bruce’s horrified face and takes off running. Other than that the story is accurate. DevilofHellskitchen2015 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The plot doesn't make that much sense in the first place. But the summary is about correct. The movie is at least an attempt to break away from the usual genre of CGI-driven nonsense masquerading as cinematic art in the past few years. 81.141.154.79 (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the final scene, it should be edited to remove that the Joker was “recaptured”. As one (my) interpretation of this could be that Arthur created the Joker origin story in his head simultaneously as the protests & murder of Wayne’s parents were happening in Gotham. Had that not occurred to anyone else yet? That a delusional psychotic might create their own origin story... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrySugarTheThird (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The final scene leaves me also confused. Why is Arthur in Arkham?

1. Is 'Joker' plotted in non-chronological order?
2. Or is it Arthur's delusion leaving us asking what has really happened.

88.128.80.164 (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the entire section, and added some minor details. It is free to change if there is an error. Bibliac (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Bibliac, it makes the plot way too long. What was already there was fine, see WP:FILMPLOT. JOEBRO64 12:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm still not pleased with the way it's written; it doesn't sound scholarly, and there are some glaring grammar errors as well that need to be fixed. I'm going to try to make some revisions without lengthening it Bibliac (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: You wanna talk why you undid that revision? I didn't change much, just cleaned up some sentences and phrasing Bibliac (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: I suppose I'll leave it to you, then, but at least fix the grammatical errors. Tense seems to be a big problem Bibliac (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Addition to Casting and Plot sections of Joker article

Please add the names of the actors that played the two mental health professionals in the film. Also please mention in the Plot section a more detailed account of how he was dropped by Gotham social services department and his access to his medications was discontinued. This is a significant and relevant event in the film which contributed significantly to Joker's downfall and his increased tendency towards violence.RubyCrystal19 (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)RubyCrystal19

Typo in Themes and Analysis

Third paragraph, second sentence: "planned to present film clips during hsi classes" should be "planned to present film clips during his classes"

Done. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

please change: "Although Phoenix's performance, the musical score, and the cinematography were praised, the dark tone, portrayal of mental illness, and handling of violence divided opinion and generated concerns of inspiring real-world violence;" to: "Although Phoenix's performance, Phillips' direction, the musical score, and the cinematography were praised, Phillips' screenplay received criticism. Some critics said that the screenplay lacked subtext and subtlety or was too derivative of Martin Scorsese's films. Also, the film's dark tone, portrayal of mental illness, and handling of violence generated concerns of inspiring real-world violence."

because: The critical polarization had nothing to do with the violence, dark tone or handling of mental illness. Based on the critics' reviews I have read, criticism was about Phillips' screenplay. Common criticisms include the lack of subtlety/subtext in the screenplay and that the plot was too derivative of Scorsese films Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. The concerns that the film would inspire violence had nothing to do with the bad reviews. Also, Phillips' direction was praised by some critics. Note: I am talking about critics' reviews, not audience reviewsSource: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_2019 Seleswarapu3 (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Declined: Please review WP:USERG which states: "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not." Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Stairs

Julia Jacobs of The New York Times wrote the article. I could provide a link to where I found out but it wouldn't do most people any good. The stairs were at Shakespeare and Jerome (interesting! Joker's name in Gotham was Jerome). They have become a tourist attraction. Location scout Aaron Hurvitz wanted to use the American Gangster stairs in the Bronx, but they had been restored and didn't have the right look any more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

There is an overtly racist quote used in this article. It’s abhorrent and should be removed. It’s not cinematic analysis and it’s normalization threatens civility discourse and humanity. 2604:2000:80CA:2F00:8098:B88D:B237:4E6E (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DonQuixote (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

Unnecessary 'whom' in intro - "whom became..." should just be who became. 121.99.221.108 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 18/07/2020

Done. DonQuixote (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

evaluation by the earned money is nonsensical

you have to adjust for inflation, the number of richer people and the population in general, the price of the ticket and availability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.129.137 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joker (2019 film). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Picking this up for review. Will have my assessment ready tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Tackle the points below and I'll be back to check progress within the week. Rusted AutoParts 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: As of August 29, I have finished all the requested improvements except the archiving references request, which I am currently working on. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• As a primary contributor to this article, I'm going to say what I said at my talk page: I don't think the article is ready for GA yet. There's still a lot of production information that's missing, there may be some unreliable sources cited, the post-release needs to be fleshed out, and some sections probably need some rewriting. JOEBRO64 00:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've looked more at the article, and I think it actually needs a lot of work before it's GA-ready. IMO this nomination should be pulled. JOEBRO64 00:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit late now to pull it, please feel free to make the edits you think need to be made. Rusted AutoParts 01:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I have finished all the requested improvements. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 00:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit stuck on how to proceed. @TheJoebro64: would you be willing to outline the issues you feel still need to be addressed? Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, it's basically all the refideas I'd added on the talk page. I'm extremely busy right now (my time to edit should open back up soon though), and looking over the article again I think it's probably fine for GA (I was probably a bit harsh above, it's just that if I had nominated it I probably would've done a lot more work). I had plans to eventually bring this to FAC so I can add the refideas once I have time. JOEBRO64 20:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

✓ Pass Rusted AutoParts 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead/Infobox

• No issues for Lead paragraph.
• Remove names after Frances Conroy in infobox's cast list. Those names are not included in the official billing block (Click credits at the bottom of the page if the link doesn't auto-show the block).

Plot

• Plot meets WP:FILMPLOT requirements.

Cast

• "Although Batman himself does not appear in Joker, it ends with the murder of Thomas and Martha, which in the comics inspires Bruce to take on the Batman persona.[34]" Not sure if this is needed information.

Production

• "Marc Maron, who had recently finished filming the third season of the web television series GLOW". His filming of GLOW should be deleted. It would've been of note if it affected his scheduling for the film, but it didn't.
• "Phillips confirmed he was in the process of editing Joker in March 2019.[88] At CinemaCon the following month, he stated the film was "still taking shape" and was difficult to discuss, as he hoped to maintain secrecy.[89] Phillips also stated that most reports surrounding the film were inaccurate, which he felt was because it is "an origin story about a character that doesn't have a definitive origin."[90]" There’s a bit of an overuse of "stated" here. For the third sentence about most reports put it to something like "Phillips also denied most reports surrounding the film"

Release

• Home media subsection would make more sense here than under Post-release.

Reception

• Looks good

Post-release

• Themes and analysis typically would have it's own section.
• With Home media and Theme and analysis being moved, Cultural impact becomes it's owns section.

Future

• Looks good

References

• Looks thoroughly archived, see if any other sources need archiving.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Plot summary currently reads: "... leaving swaths of the population disenfranchised and impoverished." The word "disenfranchised" means one has lost the right to vote. not that life is hard due to economic hardships. As such, the words "disenfranchised and" should be deleted leaving only "impoverished" in the referenced sentence. Mtbagg01 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment From dictionary.com 1. to deprive (a person) of a right of citizenship, as of the right to vote. 2. to deprive of a franchise, privilege, or right.

A little more than voting. DonQuixote (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchised includes: "deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity". A Google search shows that many reliable sources use the term about the plot. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this film count as a Batman film, in terms of Sub-Categories and what-not?

Yes this film is a DC film through and through, yes it's centered on Batman's nemesis more-so than any other film before it, but does it count as a Batman film itself, owing to the film's heavy use of the Wayne's as plot devices and the implication that Arthur Fleck may or may not, in fact, be Bruce Wayne's older half-brother? That, and the film employs many references to The Dark Knight Returns and Joker's arc in said story, only to segue to portraying Batman's origin story near the very end of the movie.Internet Informant (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Introducing some homage or Easter eggs in Joker

Well, I watched Joker (2019 film), and I wonder why there is not any place and section to show homage and easter eggs in Joker; it adapt many source from multiple film, Martin's and several batman films.

If you cannot make a place for show homages, how about this way? Now Joker article includes this news story, introducing some homage source, such as "bad day" sentence from Batman: The Killing Joke, officer Debra Kane's name, Zorro, The Gay Blade, bat pole, etc. And also, Werner's bro Korea demonstrated 11 easter eggs from previous batman film, mainly The Dark Knight: police car scene, 'freak' word.[7](Korean)

I do not think that all of them are must included in Joker. But, I guess, is it ok that Debra Kane the officer in 'cast' paragraph, and "bad day" sentence and TDK homage is described as notes in 'Writing' paragraph, like notes in 'plot' paragraph at MCU film articles? It do not harm any portion, just adding new neutral information; at least, in 'Writing' paragraph, TDK also is added as motive film. Reiro (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"failed standup comedian" isn't accurate

For most of the film he is not a standup comedian, and though he fails in many ways, it's ambiguous as to whether he is failing at standup.

He has some nervous difficulties on stage during his first booking which is beyond the normal range of cringe for a first-time standup comic, but not by all that much. The rest of the show may have been (and probably was) abysmal, but if it was, we are not shown. He leaves with his confidence squarely intact (delusional or not) and a bunch of media attention that seems like it would be sufficient to get him further gigs. He was not cast out and he has not given up. That isn't failure. In order to succeed at anything we first need to do it badly a few times. It's okay to do things badly. If you are bad at something, you can get better at it. It's important to have that internalized. I am worried that the people who perceive Arthur as having failed in standup do not get that stuff, and that would be no way to live, and they should try to cultivate more faith in themselves and others.

(related note, I was reading, recently, many non-western cultures seem to engage in very little deliberate teaching, and some of it (as well as personal experience) is sort of suggestive to me of an innate human tendency to underrate peoples' capacities to learn. I wonder what that's about. I might consider a theory that... our capacity to learn has recently grown faster than our social instincts about learning could keep up with it... but I don't like this theory.)

Why are people saying "failed"? Where did that come from? I think there was a joker comic where that was the case, but you know, that's its own thing. Myas012 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

updated to an aspiring stand up comedian.Asr1014 (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lots of poorly written sentences, and some awful ones.

Sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to rewrite any of this myself. I hope it will catch the eye of an interested editor.

The poorly written sentences that I found were in the Design/Set section:

"...said he established the filming location of Gotham Square in Newark as a film set because there was still poverty."

"that it is a more realistic name in the real world."

"The theater scene displays posters of Zorro, The Gay Blade and Excalibur, commonly found visual elements in other media when the parents of Bruce Wayne are dead, including Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.; additionally, the poster of Arthur, released in 1981, noticed a specific period in this film."

"The norm "Super Rat" in radio broadcast referred to Ratcatcher, one of the Batman villains..."

"Pogo's Comedy Club where Arthur played stand-up show is named after stage name of John Wayne Gacy, being notorious as "killer clown"."

"The billboard written "Ace in the hole", located on behind of clowns in the last scene, was from a line of Joker in The Dark Knight; "

I would hope everything I have marked above with a bold effect is obviously wrong to those reading this.

This list above is not necessarily exhaustive: I suggest looking at who added/edited the sentences I identified, and reviewing all of their edits (at the very least, on this page).

Ed10101 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. someone really needs to work on that section. 68.13.37.74 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, agreed. I came here to start a conversation on this. Lack of articles indicates probably written by a Chinese or Russian speaker and maybe translated. Anyone want to fix this????? Alexandermoir (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alexandermoir @Ed10101Very late reply here, but I will do it eventually. You all can do it too, and any other editors interested, be WP:BOLD. There is a lot of content in the set design section which enumerates Easter eggs which is completely redundant, so I’ll work on improving the Design section and copy editing the article in the following months. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Forgive my laughter" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Forgive my laughter and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#Forgive my laughter until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"You get what you fucking deserve" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect You get what you fucking deserve and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 4#You get what you fucking deserve until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Genre headline

When The Batman which is mystery thriller defined as superhero movie, then why is Joker defined as psychological thriller film when it is just another comic book movie. Ashokkumar047 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Because, quite clearly, Joker is about a superhero who saves people and defeats bad guys. Give me a break. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That was a bit too sarcastic, but you should get the point. Joker is not a superhero movie because Joker is not a superhero. A superhero saves people, or fights to protect the innocent, and the character Joker in the film does not represent the qualities associated with superheroism. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional Music Omission

There is no mention of the Jackson C. Frank song My Name is Carnival which is used in the film. This is a significant omission as the song both in terms of the lyrics and the tone speak to the essential essence of the character. There is also a subtler sub-text which must have been deliberate , insofar as the tragic life and lack of recognition that the singer Jackson C. Frank experienced mirrors in no small part the experience of the fictional character Arthur Fleck. Dorchdaddy1! (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

2024 new sequel

new sequel upcoming 2A00:1110:128:44B2:9927:269:2E5:E088 (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Joker (2019 film)#Sequel already says: "On August 3, Warner Bros. Pictures announced that the film will be released on October 4, 2024." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

add gypsy crusader to Cultural impact

gypsy is well known with his "joker" chracter that inspired by this movie... then, why not add it? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Arthur Fleck Wayne" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Arthur Fleck Wayne has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27 § Arthur Fleck Wayne until a consensus is reached. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)