Talk:Don Jon

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Budget

Note: budget figure has been disputed, but an alternate source was not provided at the time. Also note: Box Office Mojo is not particularly reliable. The Numbers puts the budget for Don Jon at $5.5 million. The Los Angeles Times, Variety, or The Hollywood Reporter are often good sources for budget figures. -- 93.107.207.225 (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fRom article history JGL on Stern saying $3 - 4 million at 45m 30s -- 93.107.207.225 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again Deadline notes that the budget is $3 million and that Relativity claims the budget is $5.5 - $6 million. -- 109.76.62.209 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

The Theatrical release poster should be used. It is not entirely clear which poster is the theatrical release poster but the poster marked "This Fall" is clearly a teaser poster and not the image wikipedia guidelines recommend (although it is the image used by imdb. -- 109.76.62.209 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, there are MANY different posters for the film. Either the first poster revealed, or the second poster (which includes the credits at the bottom), but certainly not the red one. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gray poster seems fine. -- 109.76.62.209 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor changed the poster back to the red one. I'm still not entirely sure why you objected to that poster, User:InfamousPrince doesn't know either and will hopefully add comments explaining why that is the correct poster, but Status it would be good if you could make clearer why exactly you object to the red poster. -- 109.78.48.82 (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The red poster is the latest domestic theatrical poster with film credits that is released prior to film's release, so it's obvious that that one should be used, like on any other film article. Also, please don't upload the same (or any other) poster on the completely new page, when you could have done that on the already existing one that has, as per Template:Infobox film#Image, the "poster" in its name. Thanks. InfamousPrince 21:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film#Image clearly states that "an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded". The one in the article currently was the first one released with the billing block. There are many different posters for the film, as seen here. Allmusic, for example, uses the one in the article. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, it is the first one released, but all film articles here on WikiProject Film use the latest one released, so... Also, who cares what poster Allmusic uses, IMDb, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo all use the teaser poster, so that obviously represents nothing. But I really don't care about all that, what I care about, and what bothers me, is your png file, which is at least five times larger in size than a normal jpg file, which should be used like everywhere else, and also, your file doesn't have the "poster" in it's name, and it should. I fixed all that for you. InfamousPrince 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is JPG should be used instead of PNG, as InfamousPrince explained, the formats work differently and PNG is not as efficient for this type of graphic.

As I said earlier WP:MOSFILM recommends using the Theatrical release poster, the only question is which poster is the final theatrical release poster (the billing block does not matter, except that if a poster does not have a billing block then it is likely a teaser poster, not the actual theatrical release poster.)

For someone with nickname "Status" you seem strangely reluctant to explain your edits and discuss on the talk page before making reverts. You have repeatedly removed a line break that I explained was deliberately include to keep a piece of information separate. The change itself is trivial but the lack of explanation, as if you didn't see my edit summary explaining it, is the troublesome part. -- 109.78.63.100 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

From reading reviews I think there is some information that should at some point be added back to the article, I'm just not entirely sure about the best way to do it.

The film was previously titled "Don Jon's Addiction"
When released at Sundance the film was NC-17 rated

The previous title should be mentioned somewhere, possibly under Production/Development/Writing but as an isolated fact it is tricky to work into the flow of the article (iirc it was removed from the intro and that did probably give it undue weight but it should be included somewhere in the article). There is also the larger context, JGL said in various interviews his intention to make a mainstream movie and get a wide release, so depending on how the article expands and what other additions people want to make, details might fit better in different places.

The different rating means cuts and changes were made. This might be mentioned in a "Ratings" section or again it could be mentioned as part of Production/Development. An article from Huffington Post includes comments from JGL that his hope was the festival cut of the film would receive an R rating as but that he had "no intention" releasing it with any ohter rating. (The article also mentions Relativity promising to spend $25 million on advertising, these P&A costs may be worth mentioning in the context of Box Office earnings, or possibly as part of any discussion of Release and distribution.) Linked from HP another article at THR again mentions the possibility cuts might be needed.

And after writing all this I find an article from the LA Times where JGL says "No time, lines or story points were cut out," but that different pornography was included or cropped to make it less explicit. (Article also mentions Relativity changed their initial plans for a summer release to an October release).

So only really two small points but it will take some effort to paraphrase and reorganize that information and include in the article a good way. I'd do it myself but I've already spent too much time on this. -- 109.79.219.168 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Star cameos

Several porn stars show up briefly in this movie -- either in Jon's computer or imagination. These include

Alexis Texas
Sunny Lane
Kayden Kross
Tori Black
Danni Daniels
Missy Stone
Isis Taylor

Any more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.129.231 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are independent reliable sources discussing this, the names will be listed. If there are no such sources, there is certainly nothing to discuss here. Either way, we're done. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this movie review by porn actress Allie Haze mentions the porn star cameos http://www.thewrap.com/joseph-gordon-levitts-don-jon-reviewed-by-a-porn-star-video/

Cast section

This section mentions people in the movie but some are not referenced at all in the plot section. In particular Brie Larson is credited as his sister Monica Martello but has no mention outside this section. The plot should have her character added to it. --Daffydavid (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add brief character descriptions in the cast list? We shouldn't have to force every character to be identified in the plot summary since the writing can come out as awkward. Plot section needs to be trimmed anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

It seems that the same award, “Don LaFontaine Award for Best Voice Over“, is listed twice, just with different renderings of the same nominated subject? A Carbine Flash (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, A Carbine Flash, that's been there for five years with nobody noticing. Fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

While I referred the latest version of this article to make a whole new plot in the Japanese version, I noticed some discrepancies in the events in terms of chronological order. For instance, it reads, "She reveals that her husband and son died in a car accident. She lends him an erotic video that she believes has a more realistic depiction of sexual relations. He responds by initiating a sexual encounter in her parked car." However, in the film, Esther lends the video first, then they have a sex in her car, and finally when she invites him to her house, she reveals the secret of her tragedy. This is just a example. There are some other cases here and there. I understand that events can be reordered, but there seems to be no point to do so in this film, since there is not any twist in timeline. I hope some editor could fix the order of the events. --直蔵 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]