Jump to content

Talk:Joker: Folie à Deux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]