Talk:Joker: Folie à Deux

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joker: Folie à Deux article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Comic book / American

	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 Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comics: United States / DC Comics / Batman / Films Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Batman work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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).

Lady Gaga High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lady Gaga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lady Gaga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lady GagaWikipedia:WikiProject Lady GagaTemplate:WikiProject Lady GagaLady Gaga articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Deadline and Variety, among others, are treating Joker: Folie à Deux as the actual title of the film, rather than a working title. I think this is enough to move this page, thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely enough to move to Joker: Folie à Deux (shared madness?). — SirDot (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that it's probably okay to move the draft to that title. -- Zoo (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just got official confirmation here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musical?

I don’t believe it was confirmed that this is an actual musical, just that it will have musical elements. Most likely 1 or 2 dream sequence musical numbers. Anonypedia69 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say the sequel is also a musical ([1]), already in the article. —El Millo (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources said The Batman is a neo-noir as well, but The Batman is mentioned as superhero movie only Ashokkumar047 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of this film as a musical is a constant amongst all its articles and it's especially covered in reliable sources due to its particularity in the genre of films based on superhero comics. The Batman being a neo-noir is not as present in reliable sources, and it's not as particular or as distinct. —El Millo (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any merit to this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-68778047 67.161.109.147 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn

Right now, sources are only saying that Gaga is rumoured to be Quinn.

I'd be surprised if she wasn't, but nonetheless, all the references point towards this still being rumour, rather than officially confirmed, so maybe we should edit the cast listing to reflect that. 66.133.4.3 (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Robbie confirmed it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus But Margot Robbie isn't working on the film, and these quotes don't seem to indicate that she got told directly by someone who is.

It's very possible she's assuming with the rest of us, and is giving her opinion based on that assumption. 1.145.37.220 (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before she was cast, sources also stated that she would be playing Harley Quinn if cast: [2], [3]. So I think it's fine if we keep that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No trailers

The article references a trailer and cites sources, neither of which reference the film. Only fan fiction trailers exist. Remove the “accolades” section? Uweelose (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was about the "Date Announce" spot, not necessarily a full-length trailer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit

Sorry, I written the subject of my last edit with an Italian phrase. I wanted to write: "Like in other similiar articles". Sorry. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official trailer and poster

Please gain consensus by following WP:CONSENSUS before adding a new poster and information about the official trailer. The Media Expert (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Nowhere near 200 million. Please change the infobox budget. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The budget field should include the budget most known by reliable sources. There have been prior instances where a director disputes a reported budget (ie Argylle), though this budget should not be removed on the basis of Phillips's statement alone. Wait to see if any sources closer to its release offer anything different. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better not to state any budget firmly. There have been guys who suffered due to overstating their budgets. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources state. Of course someone involved in a product would try to paint it in a different light. Removing the budget because the director said it was less is not a sufficient rationale to do so. These trades have a tendency to report these budgets as estimates, anyway, and this is the only budget all reliable sources have gone with thus far. If anything does come out with a different budget, those can be included as an overall range, though it should not be removed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I didn't say that this budget in particular was an estimate, just that these often are just estimates because later sources come out with a more exact figure (ie Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, etc.), The source for it makes no mention of this budget being an estimate, so we can't say that it is an estimate per WP:SYNTH. This is only one budget vs the director saying it is something else, which has not been verified. Until then, the most reliably sourced budget should remain. These budgets can often include talent spending, as well, and Phoenix's (and likely Gaga's) salary is high at $20m (per source in the article), so that may be what Phillips is referring to as the production budget, not the full budget which Variety is likely going off of. Of course, this is all an WP:OR analysis of common trends I have seen in the business. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of AI

Can somebody please add information on the blatant and obvious use of AI throughout the movie? It annoyed me from the start. Source: https://2immersive4u.com/2024/10/02/unveiling-ais-role-in-the-making-of-joker-folie-a-deux-stories-about-ai/ 87.208.37.92 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the source itself looks ai generated, lol 73.50.68.96 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an AI company using AI to write their own articles. (which makes sense I guess?) 87.208.37.92 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "rape" in summary

its technically correct, but, seeing as this article is starting to get cited in stupid culture war arguments about this movie, the term has much more weight than what is portrayed in the actual movie. very much a definition meaning vs popular usage issue, though, so that's why i bring it up here. 73.50.68.96 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See below #Plot/suggestion of rape -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he was or wasn't raped was left up for interpretation by the director. Explicitly saying it one way or the other is going to invite edit wars and a lot of arguing on the talk page. I would suggest being as clear and factual as possible, may I suggest "Arthur is violently stripped of his clothes in the showers room. The film then cuts to him being dragged to a cell, still in full makeup, with his jacket back on, but no pants." Habanero-tan (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. See below. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLOT summary too detailed

Looks like a review, more than a synopsis 151.37.220.151 (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Absolutely not. See WP:PLOTSUM.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audience reception

I feel like it would be a good idea to mention the audience reception (especially in the introductory paragraphs) as it is negative as well, in contrast to the first movie. Officer Memes (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

end scene theory

theory, anyone think the inmate at the end was THE Joker? only just saw the film today, mind you.Visokor (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be what is implied, indeed, I though the same. And apparently is indeed suggested (also here)...-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot/suggestion of rape

The current wording is: "Returning to Arkham, he is taken to the bathroom and attacked by head guard Jackie Sullivan and two other guards as punishment. Jackie beats him and forces him to undress while he's lying on the floor. Later, when Arthur is returned to his cell,": I would suggest we add (italics part): "Returning to Arkham, he is taken to the bathroom and attacked by head guard Jackie Sullivan and two other guards as punishment. Jackie beats him and forces him to undress while he's lying on the floor. The rest of the assault is not shown. Later, when Arthur is returned to his cell, unconscious half-undressed,": Or something like that. The sexual connotation is extremely strong, which explains why various users added the wording "raped/sexual assault", but nothing is actually shown. Other suggestions? It should imv be mentioned even in a note or in a theme section with a source. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: "Arthur is violently stripped of his clothes in the showers room. The film then cuts to him being dragged to a cell, still in full makeup, with his jacket back on, but no pants." Habanero-tan (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: your suggestion seems very good (although we do not see him stripped of his clothes, technically). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animated opening

Can one explain why they want the mention of the substantial animated sequence opening the film deleted? It should stay.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC) (I had added subsections Opening/Plot in case that could help and indicated the title came on the red screen, but apparently someone disliked the idea)[reply]

Reception

There's been constant edit warring in the introductory paragraphs over whether the film's overall reception is negative, mixed, mixed-to-negative, or "not well received". Could we please try coming to a consensus? KeysofDreams (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources state "mixed" (THR) while others say (generally) "negative" (LA Times). Since we don't use "mixed-to-negative" nonsense, we say it was not well-received. It's not that hard to understand. ภץאคгöร 19:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, however its worth saying that Phoenix's performance is praised in most reviews read so far. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for "not well received". I am not opposed to "mixed to negative", though, as, albeit quite ugly, it is clear; also, indeed, a mention of the existing praises for Phoenix (and Gaga?)'s performance(s), even in very mixed reviews, would seem acceptable if not necessary and might bring an end to the debate.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]