Talk:Joker: Folie à Deux

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Any merit to this?

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

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Budget

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

PLOT summary too detailed

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I was shocked to go on Wikipedia, just after having seen the movie, and read that Arthur was RAPED. That wasn't what I saw or thought of at all. There's not enough before the scene or enough after the scene to make a case for it, or to even suggest it. The scene is OPEN enough for a viewer to read that into it, but then it's a completely subjective creation in the viewer's mind. Like, when a director chooses to leave out as much as possible in a scary scene, to make the scene come alive inside the viewer's mind.

Anyways, I was glad to see it changed now, but it still looks very weird with such a DETAILED description of what happens, when the rest of the summary isn't as detailed. It makes it look like the summary itself wants to suggest "rape" rather than be objective. "Returning to Arkham, he is taken to the bathroom and attacked by head guard Jackie Sullivan and two other guards as punishment during a shower routine." That sentence is sufficient enough. If one doesn't agree, then why not be as detailed with everything else in the summary? The description itself is too suggestive as it stands right now. Mykyw (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. We cannot mention he is raped, agreed; but we need to tell the reader that this is extremely strongly suggested, because it is. I therefore disagree with the wording you suggest and do not think it is sufficient. The rest of the plot might become as detailed as this in time, that's not an issue. Certain scenes receive longer descriptions than other. Now, the current phrasing and wording can be changed, sure, but, again, the clear suggestion implied by what is SHOWN must be transcribed in words. However, I would not be opposed to the removal of the currently present category Category:Films about rape in the United States. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, has that category been applied to it? That is f:ed up. I don't agree that it is "extremely strongly suggested": it is "open enough" for a viewer to read "rape" into it, granted, but there are too many elements surrounding the scene, and within it, to *equally* suggest otherwise. None of the guards have been prepped beforehand to seem like possible rapists. Nothing in the social interactions in the prison afterwards suggest that a rape took place. Nothing any of the cops say during the attack suggest anything sexual. Water is used and clothes are removed, probably because this is part of a "cleaning up"-routine, when a prisoner is returned. And the guards are being violent because they're cross with Arthur. Arthur being in a disarray afterwards, could be because he struggled and put up a fight during the routine (very likely).

I believe it is an issue that the rest of the summary isn't as detailed, because now, the article is rather forcibly putting "rape" into the head of anyone who reads the text, instead of being objective. I still think my suggestion is sufficient, but IF we work with what's written now, "a state of disarray" would be a better description of how Arthur is wearing his clothes when he's being returned to isolation. Mykyw (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ; the last moment in the scene to be partially shown has the chief guard standing, and getting ready for something while giving the order to have Arthur immediately undressed while he is on the floor, all of which suggests a subsequent rape or sexual assault of some sort, very, very strongly. I’ll remove the category, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Most sources agree that the film intended to imply that he was raped by the guards. I added them in a footnote. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be the case at all, after a quick Google Search. Most publications report on the *division* of how audiences perceived the scene, like here:

https://comicbookmovie.com/batman/joker/joker-folie-deux-fans-divided-over-apparent-rape-scene-as-todd-phillips-talks-more-about-divisive-ending-a213722#gs.gf0d3l

Or here: https://www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/news/joker-2-rape-scene-fan-reaction-103331-20241007

"Most sources agree that the film intended to imply that he was raped by the guards" is not a correct statement.

I can also expand a little about the differences on a movie scene being "open" and "suggestive". "Open" means that a certain amount of information is up to the audience to interpret or imagine. "Suggestive" means that there are clues and details that "point" towards a *specific* outcome of something we don't see. For the scene in "Joker 2" to be "suggestive", as many people believe it is - even *strongly* (!) - it would need to contain clues and details that can only be explained in one single way. This is not the case with "Joker 2". There are no sexual innuendos from the guards accused of the rape. There is nothing in the presentations of these characters before the scene in question that makes them tonally believable as rapists. During the scene which is taken by some to be "suggestive of rape", none of the characters say or do anything sexual. There are no unzipping of flys, no sexual comments - nothing. There seem to be 2 main points for those who want to argue that Arthur Fleck is raped: 1) his clothes are in a state of disarray after the incident we don't get to see. 2) Rape is not an uncommon form of violence in prisons, both from guards against prisoners and among the prisoners themselves. But none of the two points are *exclusive* to someone being raped - and especially the first one can be explained in more than one way (see some of my other posts here). Hence, there is nothing "suggestive" about the scene. I can have some sympathy for people reading the scene in that specific way, knowing that individual readings are at the core of the emotional reaction to something in a narrative. But as this is Wikipedia, where some objectiveness should be expected, I want to be clear about both the terms and the contents of the actual film. Mykyw (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Aren't you going to buy me a drink first?", when Sullivan rips his shirt off after having unknotted his necktie, is pretty suggestive to me; an so are the position of the 3 men, and the state of Fleck as he is dragged to his cell (marks on thighs, no trousers). The current wording is objective in my view (not interpretative -see below- but just descriptive). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A recent addition to the plot reads "He has large bruises on his buttocks, suggestive of sexual assault”. I am not sure it is necessary but I am not fiercely opposed. I would remove ’suggestive of sexual assault”, though as this seems to be an (accurate or possible) interpretation only. He could have been beaten only.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That was removed. I did not reinsert it. But I did revert the insertion of "sexual assault", one more time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW, Hello, I had to undo your edit and yes, sorry, I understand it included sources. Again, I agree the implication is strong. But plot sections on WP go by what is seen and shown not by what spectators can imagine or critics indicate is implied. Feel free to create a subsecfion or a section in the Themes and analysis part. Thank you for your understanding. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with the above; the film is certainly not well-received, though there was some praise for the performances. Piccco (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Critical response was mainly negative, not mixed, but writing 'mixed or negative' equates the two positions. Obscurasky (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, it's not from the reliable sources; the number of sources reporting "mixed" is higher than "negative" on the page. ภץאคгöร 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really disagree that the overall response generally leans to negative. Personally, I only agreed with those saying that there has also been some praise for the performances. Piccco (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This just looks like a much-more cited redux of Deadpool & Wolverine#Critical response. I support "not well-recieved". BarntToust^(Talk) 21:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

1. The overall reception has been changed to "poorly received". I'm personally fine with that. But I'm mentioning it here, just to confirm that is OK with everyone (because that is going to be challenged, probably).
2. Mentions of performances praised= Done(partially by me, but someone else added Gaga's, which I supported; thanks). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "poorly received" indicates negative, not mixed. People agreed to "not well-received" here, whether this should be changed should be discussed first. ภץאคгöร 17:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. I prefer not well-received, anyway (as I think it’s a fairer description of what reception is so far). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated not well-received. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420, I agree that "poorly received" sounds better and more natural than "not well-received" but I also think that it sounds more negative. Until other users indicate we can change the wording, can we stick to not well-received? Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

ok fine mushy you win again. until then, can you please find a synonym for not well? Thanks HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not winning nor losing, personally, it's not about me. Users have agreed on "not well-received", so that for the moment that's the consensus. If reception changes or other users have other ideas, it might be changed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

okie HiGuys69420 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If I was here a little earlier, I would've likely also 'voted' for "poorly received" too, because I believe it might be a little more accurate to describe the film's reception. Although I don't really mind "not well-received", this might imply that viewers were perhaps left uninterested or indifferent, while in reality a large portion of the audience was actively 'hating' the film, more than it was indifferent towards it. And this comes from someone who, before release, expected the film to be "well-receieved". Piccco (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about our own opinions or the audience here. The sources do not report critics "hating" the film. They state negative or mixed reception. ภץאคгöร 22:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Self-reflexive_films

Hello, given the very good newly-added section Joker: Folie à Deux#Themes and analysis mentioning it is a metafiction, would anyone support adding the category self-reflexive films? Thanks. @Little Jimmy: what would you say? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah. go for it. BarntToust^(Talk) 21:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the props, yeah I agree add the category. Little Jimmy (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Category American films about revenge=?

Unless I missed something (revenge against society, himself?), I would like to remove that category.

Does anyone support the removal? Or can someone explain why that category’s here? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. Feel free to revert If that was a mistake (and let me know why, please). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't he raped by guards? So it makes sense to add the revenge category because he got his revenge against the guards.84.54.70.44 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

But he does not and nothing shows he wants to......and the film should be about that topic, so it should be sufficiently depicted if we want to add such a category. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Note a

My French is limited but shouldn’t we correct note a, and indicate that the literal translation of Folie à deux is "madness of two" (not for), generally translated as shared madness? See: Folie à deux and https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-10-04/joker-folie-a-deux-review-joaquin-phoenix-lady-gaga-todd-phillips, for example. If anyone wants to do it, feel free. I will do it if no one is against the idea.

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Partially done: only added the alternative translation not the literal one and the LAT ref.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does DC Studios keep getting removed from the list of production companies?

Any film that's based on a DC property has their name on it. Josh0108 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Because DC Studios didn’t produce it. It’s 100% WB. Jamesifer (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

what jamesifer just said 89.240.222.124 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Batman was a box office bomb?

“Due to the film being Warner Bros' fifth box-office bomb based on DC characters since The Batman, preceded by Black Adam (both 2022), Shazam! Fury of the Gods, The Flash and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (all 2023),”

The Batman made three quarters of a billion. Far from the highest grossing Batman or DC movie, but certainly not a bomb. Is this list meant to include Blue Beetle, given that that movie barely outgrossed its budget? Jamesifer (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that it’s now classed as the sixth, including Blue Beetle - but I maintain that The Batman was far from a ‘bomb’. Jamesifer (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

making nearly 800 million is not a flop you have to be considered insane just to think that and no the fives films after the batman were flops including blue beetle 89.240.222.124 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

the batman was a big sucuess 89.240.222.124 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing needs to be improved, but as written this doesn't say The Batman was a flop. "Due to [Joker: Folie á Deux] being Warner Bros' fifth box-office bomb based on DC characters since The Batman" means that The Batman was its last success and there have been five flops since (including this movie). The next sentence, "preceded by Black Adam, Shazam! Fury of the Gods, The Flash and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" lists the other four, or I guess five now that Blue Beetle was added. There was definitely no intent to make it sound like The Batman failed, but the wording is very clunky. Sock (tock talk) 03:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2024 minor swap out of information

minor change in the production part of the article it mentions that pam abdy and mike de luca joined warner bros in 2021 of June which is factually incorrect because they actually joined in june of 2022. 89.240.222.124

 Done The cited source backed up the 2022 date. While confirming that, I noticed some close paraphrasing and removed that along with some excessive detail. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you 89.240.222.124 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

usage of the word "antagonized" and other harsh words in the themes section

that section was written in a way that seemed to sway into negative opinions of the movie. i suggest edits with less harsh diction to take a more neutral stance as an encyclopedia 69.14.166.250 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Joker: Folie à Deux Logos

Joker: Folie a Deux (2.20 :1 35mm Please Edit Video Warner Bros. Pictures) Leoncrisrafael (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)