Talk:Joy (2015 film)

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

December 6 to 12, 2015 (20th)
December 20 to 26, 2015 (25th)
December 27, 2015 to January 2, 2016 (17th)

A fact from Joy (2015 film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that currently in-production film Joy is about inventor and entrepreneur Joy Mangano?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April.

Wikipedia

Editor purporting to be from studio

An editor claiming to be from 20th Century Fox — and anyone can claim to be anyone here — says Joy is no longer about Joy Mangano. Yet Variety only one week ago, in an article about the film's trailer, says it is: http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jennifer-lawrence-bradley-cooper-joy-trailer-miracle-mop-1201540711/. So does every other source. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is confirmed. See the updated IMDB page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446980/ --b8kich (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is a wikia — anyone can add anything. Wikipedia doesn't allow it as a reference source. If Variety and The Hollywood Reporter say your claim is not true, that's kind of a red flag. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suspect you are the same editor as User:B4KD$$L, who made the initial change and who has been warned on his/her talk page about adding uncited, copyrighted and otherwise inappropriate/illegal content to Wikipedia. If so, you should be aware that admins take a dim view of sock-puppetry, or using multiple registered accounts in an effort to game the system. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL

We do not present as facts future events. there has been no release date, only a scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say I agree with Erk's edit and Callmemirela's stance, although I understand the essence of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's point, and I think all these veteran editors of good faith are actually of one mind. Let me explain.

Yes, per WP:CRYSTAL, the announced release date of a movie could change for many reasons, with some films having been postponed even at the last minute due to a news event that might make the film's release problematic, like a school shooting occurring the same week a film about a similar topic was to be released. So saying "scheduled release date" in prose is exactly right.

But with infoboxes and filmography lists, it's redundant to say "scheduled" since we're giving a future date: Of course it's scheduled ... how could it be anything else, since it hasn't happened yet? In an infobox or a filmography list, a verifiably, officially announced future event is, by definition, scheduled. So saying "scheduled" isn't necessary. (And secondarily, verified and cited prose confirms "scheduled".)

From what I can see, both Call and RedPen are correct in the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. The only difference between them is grammatical. Yes, the infobox date is a scheduled one. But for the reasoning above, in this non-prose seeing, it's redundant to say "scheduled." My two cents. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there is anything "less predictive" about placing and discussing a future event in the infobox than placing and discussing a future event in the text. If anything, the infobox which is supposed to provide necessary information at a glance would be the place where we would want to be more careful about giving inaccurate and presumptive information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with you. I'm just saying that for the grammatical reasoning I gave, it's redundant to say it in a chart format since by logic any future date in such a list is "scheduled." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, there was a wider discussion at WT:FILM#Joy (film). Consensus is strongly finding the additional detail in the infobox unnecessary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Got it. Glad we agree! I'll copy my post over there so it's in the record.

Summary

"The film follows four generations of Joy Mangano" is a confusing and illogical statement (unless the woman has herself lived for four generations, which I doubt is the intended meaning). Deor (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and fix it. Lapadite (talk)

I wrote the summary. That is exactly what the summary is. I can understand it can be confusing. Being myself, I can't find that crucial word to clarify the summary. By all means, go ahead in my place. I don't control the content. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know absolutely nothing about the film, so I don't know what it's supposed to mean. "The film deals with four generations of Joy Magano's family"? Deor (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four generations as in generations from Joy's life, such as childhood, adulthood, etc. The four generations of her life. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help (from official website): "JOY is the wild story of a family across four generations centered on the girl who becomes the woman who founds a business dynasty and becomes a matriarch in her own right. Betrayal, treachery, the loss of innocence and the scars of love, pave the road in this intense emotional and human comedy about becoming a true boss of family and enterprise facing a world of unforgiving commerce. Allies become adversaries and adversaries become allies, both inside and outside the family, as Joy’s inner life and fierce imagination carry her through the storm she faces." Lapadite (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopping anon IP

Unsourced claims made to the infobox yesterday and today by anon IPs appear to be from the same person — an anon-IP with no other edits making essentially identical claims in the same format. Let's keep an eye on this person. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the notice. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For plot section

This will become clearer once the movie is out, but as Newsday and the real-life Joy note, the character in the movie is inspired by Mangano, but is not named Mangano and this is less a biographical drama than a rags-to-riches fable. Per http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/miracle-mop-inventor-joy-mangano-attends-joy-film-premiere-1.11225549:

In fact, the last name Mangano and the locale of Smithtown, where the real-life Joy’s Miracle Mop and many other inventions were born, are never uttered in the film. “I was just the inspiration for the movie,” said Mangano, noting that director and co-writer David O. Russell’s film is not a biography per se — while adding with a laugh, “Do you know many women that invented a Miracle Mop?”

Additionally, in the same story, Virginia Madsen, who plays Joy's mother in the film, says, “My character was fictional. It was based on different aspects of people in Joy’s life.” --Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy? Drama? Comedy-drama?

The lead sentence has called this film all three - comedy-drama, comedy, and drama - at various times. It currently says "comedy" but that was recently changed from "drama" by a blocked vandal. What do reliable sources call it? --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the categories in which is was nominated for awards, "comedy" is probably the best supported. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mops

How do we get to the third paragraph of this article before any mention of mops? This is a film about mops, one of its main stars is a mop. If you hadn't watched this film and came here to find out about it before watching it, but didn't want to read the plot you wouldn't even know that this film is about mops. Bodrugan (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]