Talk:The King of Comedy (film)

1982 or 1983

Personally, seeing that Wikipedia is an international site, I think that the title should be The King of Comedy (1982 film). It's first release was in 82. Even if it was produced in the US, it doesn't mean that a release outside doesn't matter. What do you think? --Steinninn 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that it should be listed under the US release date of 1983. The reason for this is that while Wikipedia may be an international site there are other versions of it for specific regions. This version of Wikipedia is the English/US version, while the 1982 release date only applies to Iceland and there are European versions of Wikipedia available.

In addition, if this film were to be moved to 1982, everything that links to the 1983 page needs to be moved to linking to the 1982 page, which wasn't done when it was first moved. That was one of the main reasons for it being moved back to 1983. Another point is that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of films that have release dates in different years depending on which country you are talking about. Most of the time the "release date" is attributed to when it was released in the country of production. In this case, it was an American film which just happened to get an earlier release in Iceland in 1982. That abberation should not alter the fact that everyone (including 20th Century Fox which made the film) consider the release year to be 1983. For further proof, pick up a copy of the DVD release, which clearly shows "1983" as the release date..."1982" is listed as being the copyright date however. If you want to get even more technical, perhaps it should be listed as a "1981" film, since that is when it was filmed. Thanks! Donaldd23 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the policies are that this is a European wikipedia just as much as it is US, and Asian and African and and and. So I still believe that the title should be (1982 film) --Steinninn 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Although that may be the case, to change this film to 1982, even though the distributor considers it a 1983 film, would warrant a change for every film on Wikipedia that falls under the same situation. If we look at other Jerry Lewis films for example, his "comeback" film, Hardly Working is considered a 1981 film, despite its European release in 1980 and having been filmed in 1979. Arizona Dream, which also starred Johnny Depp, is considered a 1994 film, although it received a European release in 1993 and it was filmed in 1991. These are just a few small examples, but there are hundreds. If this were to change, every film that falls unfer this situation on Wikipedia needs to change as well. To change only this one would make it inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia's content. Donaldd23 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll leave it as it is for now. --Steinninn ^talk 23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this comment was made May 2007, Hardly Working's page says it's a 1980 film, and Arizona Dream's page says it's a 1993 film. So, The King of Comedy should be listed as a 1982 film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.85.52 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is very little scholarly writing that states 1982 as the initial release date, most just say 1983. Also, the citation stated for the 1982 Iceland release is a dead link, so there is no actual evidence on the Wikipedia page of this initial release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisamcgill (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Icelandic newspaper archives carry details of the screenings over several weeks. Here are three such papers with details: https://timarit.is/page/1567189?iabr=on#page/n41/mode/2up and https://timarit.is/page/2470553?iabr=on#page/n45/mode/2up and https://timarit.is/page/4020939?iabr=on#page/n21/mode/2up TMDaines (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that such listings continue into following weeks of newspaper editions, if you wanted confirmation that screenings of the film were not erroneously announced and then pulled. TMDaines (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't care whether it's 1982 or 1983, but it should at least be consistent. Right now the article title says 1983, but the first sentence says it is a "1982 American black comedy drama film." 2604:2000:EFC0:2:28C9:9497:C68B:2C0B (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of an external link within the article

The external link to a poorly copied partial scan of the People magazine article has it's link in the notes section, as a reference from the section in the article which paraphrases it. However, a user continues to insert the external link within the article, making a section of that article into a highlighted external link. There is no need for two links. The correct way to add an external link is either in the reference/notes section, or in the external link section. Please do not reinsert the external link into the article. Thanks! Donaldd23 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to an actual reference (publication title, date, page) rather than a link to a scan, so we don't need a link at all. I suspect it's spam anyway, because the first thing you see at the top of that link is a link to an article on another site - presumably, adding the link here will increase the search engine rankings of that external article. There's no reason why we need scans of references rather than a standard citation (notwithstanding the copyvio status of the scan), and no reason for external links unless it's to a legitimate online edition of the referenced work. Thomjakobsen 22:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(Un)reality of the end sequence?

Writing in Film Viewer's Guide, esteemed critic David Bordwell suggests -- without coming down on one side of the argument or another -- that the (un)reality of the conclusion is a legitimate topic for debate. We know for a fact that at least one scene in the film (Rupert and Jerry in the restaurant) exists solely in Rupert's deluded mind; therefore it is surely not unreasonable to consider if others do as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.64.203.207 (talk)

Not quite sold on this theory, but I will let it stay. However I moved it to its own section as it is one critic's opinion about the film's end and not actually part of the plot. Donaldd23 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Admittedly it is just a theory, but it should be mentioned. (Same unsigned poster as above, writing from a different computer.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.65.99.20 (talk) 08:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are two scenes that definately happen in his imagination. The restaurant and the bit where Jerry praises Rupert's tape in his office? There might even be another one, I'm not sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to catch the ending on cable to be sure, but there is a camera trick, a brief blurring, at the beginning and end of the final fantasy sequence that makes it clear that it is a fantasy he's living while in a padded cell. If you were to blink or look away at the wrong moment, you could miss it, but it's there. WordwizardW (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What I find weird is that until reading this article, I thought it was obvious that the end was all in Pupkin's head. I didn't think there was even a question of it. That this is just a "theory" surprises me. Maybe I've just watched so many reality-distorting films that I'm more used to this kind of device than many other viewers. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about the scene(s) where Rupert is in a room alone and is talking to his mother, as though she's in the next room? Later in the film, during his stand-up routine, he says she's been dead for nine years. Does he know he is talking to no-one? Does he imagine she came back to life? Is she alive, but he falsely claims she's dead for the sake of one joke? This is another example of a scene in which it's uncertain what's meant to be real and what's meant to be imagined or invented by him. Jim Michael (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I had to catch the ending again on cable to be sure, but there is a camera trick, a brief blurring, at the beginning and end of the final fantasy sequence that makes it clear that it is a fantasy he's living, in a psychotic break, while in a padded cell. If you were to blink or look away at the wrong moment, you could miss it, but it's there. WordwizardW (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about accidentally repeating myself out of sequence. WordwizardW (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

External reviews

Point the link to something like rotten tomatoes. The inclusion of just a few minor links is a bad sample....and who the hell ever heard of/reads Empire magazine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.160.34 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the UK's biggest film magazine. Article: Empire (magazine) Thomjakobsen 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KingOfComedyPoster.jpg

Image:KingOfComedyPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kingofcomedydvd.jpg

Image:Kingofcomedydvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbour reference

Not that it is vital to the film's article, but the band is British and uses the British spelling of 'Harbour' in their name. See a review of one of their cds at http://thep5.blogspot.com/2008/01/pearl-harbour-dont-follow-me-im-lost.html If we are going to keep the reference to this obscure band in the article then we should at least spell it correctly. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• The webpage for PH&tE is spelled/spelt "HarbOR". Whether she and/or the band was British, she used both the Harbor and Harbour names. The fact that the 1941 attack was at Pearl HarbOR could be another argument for using the -or spelling. 207.210.134.83 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Uncredited Actors

I'm fairly sure that Michael O'Donoghue (from SNL) is present in the scene where Pipkin is monopolizing the payphone. Can this be confirmed and mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbeechwood (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the disputed "When it was first released [...] ahead of its time."

Some have added the two sentences back multiple times, and others appear to dislike the whole thing. My opinion is mixed. Certain parts are dubious, first of all. The film, according to Ehrenstein, did not receive "mixed" reviews. He simply states that it was neither panned nor universally praised. Mark Kermode, however, reports that it did get a "critical kicking". Concerning the second sentence (which could be improved in wording), it is indeed true that The King of Comedy is now considered a prescient work. I can give several more sources for those doubting this particular part of the addition. AndrewOne (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I object to how terribly written the addition is, and how lazy the citations are – as though it is the job of some other editor(s) to cleanup after the anon. Frankly, I find it insulting. It should be noted, as well, that this same anon. editor has been adding similar rubbish edits to other Scorcese-related articles. He has also refused to discuss his edits or offer any explanation of any kind. His refusal to respond in any way or alter his habits only further convinces me that he is not here to collaborate, so I see no need to show him mercy.

That said, the idea of critical reappraisal of the film would be appropriate, if properly written and sourced, in the reception section. I do not think it needs to be in the lede. Thanks for your message, Andrew. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Cameos

@Donaldd23 and TheOldJacobite: Let's see if we can head off the brewing edit war. I'm seeing a tiny consensus (2 to 1) in favor of removing Joyce Brothers and Victor Borge from the cast list. I think we should always avoid article bloat, and one of the easiest ways to do this is by removing non-notable, non-memorable performers from cast lists. I haven't seen this movie in years but if I recall, Donald was correct with this edit summary where he described their performances as cameos but his next edit says the exact opposite. My reading of the relevant MOS says there's no concrete way of settling this and that's what we're here for.

TheOldJacobite, I believe you could make an effort towards a positive discussion by by avoiding using dismissive, low-substance edit summaries like "Last correct version" when reverting good-faith contributions. Donald, you could similarly contribute by removing the hidden notes you've appended to each listing. Your text is not permitted per the first, third, and possibly second restrictions on this sort of thing. If you'd rather not, let me know and I can do it unless you've got a policy or guideline that overrules the Manual of Style. CityOfSilver 21:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone who deletes the edits calls their appearances "cameos", however they have several scenes with concrete dialog that contributes to the plot advancement. However, whether or not they are cameos, they still appear in the film. Isn't the point of the articles to be as complete as possible? Isn't mentioning every person of significance important to the completeness of the article? It's not like I was in the film and had a 2 second background appearance and I was trying to include my name in the article. These are well know individuals with parts in the film. What would the Marvel universe films articles be like if the actors who made so-called "cameos" in the post-credits scenes were left out of those articles because someone came along and deemed them "cameos" and not worthy of inclusion. Likewise, Scorsese was in this film as a cameo...however someone deleted that, but I didn't add that one back in because it was a clear few second cameo. However, to go back to the Marvel universe films...Stan Lee shows up in each one as a cameo...and the pages with those films allow it. I am unsure why you want to eliminate actual actors from this page? My "note" was put there to let future editors know that these appearances are more than cameos...which was the reason why people were deleting them. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor_(film)#Cast There are cameos listed here. Stan Lee, Samuel Jackson, etc. How about you go there and delete them...you know, to be consistent. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Donaldd23: One article's content almost never sets precedent for another article's content. Marvel cameos have no relevance to this article. And for that matter, I agree with what you seem to be saying. If the performances didn't move the story forward, they should be excluded. I strongly believe that no actor who's only appeared in a Marvel mid- or post-credits scene should be added to a cast list. And we're doing the same thing here: there were actors in this movie who aren't listed here whose performances were longer, wordier, and more important than Brothers and Borge, whose names don't appear in the summary because, and again I could be wrong because I haven't seen this in ages, they just make cameos.

I could have guessed your rationale for including that hidden note but again, it's not permitted per point 1, point 3, and possibly point 2 at WP:HIDDEN#Inappropriate uses for hidden text. Could you have a look at those points and let me know if I'm wrong to think they're saying your hidden note isn't in accordance with the Manual of Style? CityOfSilver 22:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Good morning everybody, I can understand Donaldd23's pampy answer. CityOfSilver, you quoted the guidelines here, but you don't recognize, that Donaldd23 follows them ("If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose."). He mentioned a reasonable and understandable example for a film, where cameos are listed, to show you that he couldn'be so wrong with his intention to list the cameo-appearances of the film in the article. Yes, and nearly all articles about movies in the English Wikipedia list small, supporting roles and cameo appearances, not only articles about Marvel-films. And you wrote "If the performances didn't move the story forward, they should be excluded." Sorry, but that's your own opinion and judgment. You can't reduce a movie only to its story. Your term "story" is too short. If you have watched "The King Of Comedy" (I watched it a dozen times), you should know that it is not only about the story. The film lives through the encounters of Rupert Pupkin with all kinds of different characters; Pupkin and Cathy Long, Pupkin and Langford's servant Jonno, Pupkin and the receptionist of the production company, Pupkin and TV-producer Bert Thomas, Pupkin and the police officers, etc. These scenes create the special humour of the film. And as you know for sure cameo-appearances are often made by famous and popular people, who can have no effect on the story or/and the characters in the film. Just the fact that they're in the movie is a reason to mention them. So, an interesting aspect might be next to list all small and supporting roles and cameo appearanes, to mention also the Clash - members, who had cameo appearances, in the article and the story behind it. Here is a source: https://dangerousminds.net/comments/that_time_the_clash_appeared_in_martin_scorseses_the_king_of_comedy Greetings,--FilmMusikUndAnderes (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Full Cast Section

Currently only 4 individuals are listed in the cast section...DeNiro, Lewis, Abbott, and Bernhard. They are not the only 3 people in the film, nor are they the only 4 with significant roles. Several times in the past users have added other cast members to the cast section only to have them removed by user "TheOldJacobite" who has declared him/herself the judge/jury/executioner of this page. This user refuses to allow any actors to be listed in the cast section and demeans their role to be just a "cameo". Since more than 1 editor has added a larger cast section, only to have it almost immediately removed by this user, wouldn't it seem that the consensus is that a larger cast section should be included? This user is the only one who seems to want this cast list limited to the 3 actors listed above. They have, in fact, reverted the addition of the larger cast 3 times in the past 24 hours...which is one away from a violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule . The user however, with their last revert said that I was edit-warring even though I had only reverted it twice and suggested that we discuss before they removed it again. They ignored that suggestion and proceed to revert and accused me of the edit war.

A fuller cast section gives more credence to the film, as well as informing the audience (readers of the page) that this isn't a 4-person play. It is a full blown film with multiple talented actors contributing to it's art. These actors are credited in the actual film, but one editor wants them banned from being included in the article about the film. I think this is a discredit to their work and to their contribution and these performances should be allowed. It does not make sense that this film can be listed on those actor's pages linking to this film, but one editor does not think that the reverse should happen. I implore this editor to explain why leaving out cast members (even cameos) makes a better article than including them. It is useful to many people (including myself) when I go to a film's page and learn about all the actors in the film...and even more interesting when it is a cameo because many times the cameo is listed in detail (for example..."Man in hat in bar scene") so that the next time I watch the film I can look for the cameo myself as I more than likely missed it.

Listing a larger cast is not trivial and should not be dismissed and deleted just because of one editor's opinion. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not "one editor's opinion." We do not list the entire cast of a movie on WP, only the most important characters. Most of the people on the list you added were minor roles or cameos. They were not appropriate. I am not saying that the list should consist of only four names, but that list had de facto consensus, so any change needs to be discussed here and a consensus reached on who should be added. But the full cast list is a non-starter, as it violates WP's policies on such matters. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

On cast lists, please see WP:FILMCAST. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

More than one editor has added the full cast, you are the only editor who wants it removed. That's why the "one editor's opinion" is a correct statement. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

From the WP:FILMCAST: "If there are many cast members worth identifying," seems to cover the inclusion of several of the actors that you want left out. Famous people appearing in cameos (Dr. Joyce Brothers/Tony Randall/members of the Clash/etc) are worth identifying because they are "famous" and are appearing in this film not as unknown bit players, but because they are "famous". There appearance is an "event", not a background character that is to be ignored. Others are significant because they are connected to the director...like the director himself appearing in the film, or the inclusion of his family members. These are interesting appearances that should be noted. These are definitely allowed per FILMCAST as this has been discussed on many other film pages and cast members such as these are always included. I am only mentioning other pages because I have had this discussion before on those pages and the consensus was always to allow it. This isn't a high trafficked page, so the discussion won't get lots of opinions...but just look at other, higher trafficked pages to see these same types of discussions and you will see that larger cast lists are the preferred method. If only one other person that me wants a larger cast section, and you are the only one in favor of a smaller cast section, then I hope you will see that you are in the minority on this opinion and defer to the the larger opinion. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your rant is not the least bit convincing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither is yours. It's sad how you like to assert your dominance on this (and other pages). I seen you've been doing it on other pages too. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The guideline calls for listing "the most relevant actors and roles... the cast members worth identifying". To me, that does not say or imply the complete cast. Additionally, it would seem to likely exclude "Street Scum 1 through 9".

IMO, the question is what criteria we should use here to decide who to list. If, OTOH, you feel we should list the entire cast, it would seem you are advocating that we ignore the Manual of Style in this case and I'd wonder why this article is special. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying list everyone who was in the film. I agree that whoever put the "Street Scum" in the list was stretching the limits. However, there were more than 4 people in the film with significant parts...as well as cameos...that deserve some kind of acknowledgement. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You restored the contested addition of the entire cast, including Street Scum 1-9 twice.

In any case, we seem to have three sides here, each a majority of one.

TheOldJacobite seems to favor the status quo of the four main characters. (Incidentally, as it is the status quo, it should remain until a consensus is determined.)

(u|FilmMusikUndAnderes}} made the contested change to the extensive list, but has not yet commented here.

User:Donaldd23 twice restored the contested edit, but now seems to be supporting an as-yet undescribed middle ground}}.

(I did not include myself on that list as I don't really have an opinion, other than not seeing a reason to go against the MOS and include a complete cast list and not immediately seeing "Street Scum" 1-9 as significant roles.)

Are those essentially your opinions? So far, WP:FILMCAST (which seems relevant) has been presented. Does your opinion fit with that guideline or is there a specific reason to ignore it here? Are there other policies or guidelines that you see as appropriate here? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I seriously screwed up the pings for FilmMusikUndAnderes and Donaldd23. Let's see if I fixed it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I would describe my opinion as follows: maintain the status quo unless and until a consensus is reached as to who else is significant enough to be added. I would add that it has been too long since I last saw the film to remember which of these other characters are significant. But, adding the entire cast list is a non-starter, it cannot even be considered, per WP:FILMCAST, because it would be, by definition, indiscriminate. To reiterate, though, I would support a consensus that argues for adding some other members of the cast, if a good case can be made for them. So far, no such case has been made. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear co-authors, Donaldd23 has invited me to this discussion, which I would like to join. But first of all I would like to say that I knew nothing of this discussion when I added the rest of the cast to this article a few days ago. It was obvious and absolutely clear to me that the minor characters should be also mentioned in the article about the film as happens in several other Wikipedia articles about feature films. Here are a few examples: Django Unchained, Starship Troopers, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Hunger or A View to a Kill. In these films well-known people and actors play tiny and extra roles and are listed in the Wiki-articles about the filmes. And secondly, after I've seen "The King of Comedy" I remember every character of this film, because they are all well worked out and have striking performances and are important for the story and further actions of Rupert Pupkin. Nearly every actor in this movie has a remarkable appearance and has an effect on Rupert Pupkin. There are minor characters, such as Langford's butler Jonno (Kim Chan), the older woman as receptionist (Margo Winkler) and the assistant Cathy Long (Shelley Hack) of the production company. In addition, personalities from the television industry (Edgar Scherick or Fred de Cordova (It's even mentioned in the Wikipedia-articles about them and Chan, Winkler and Hack, that they were involved in this movie - So, why don't you want to mention this fact here?!) play roles in which they basically parody themselves. Last but not least we have several cameo appearances. Tony Randall, Martin Scorsese, his mother Catherine and members of the band The Clash appear in the film. What's wrong with it not too mention minor characters and famous musicians in the film? Only their performances are relevant. Do you remember Bono's performance in the movie The Million Dollar Hotel, for example? He is also mentioned in the cast list of the article about the film. Or the appearance of Bruce Willis and Tobin Bell in the movie The Verdict? They were extras in this movie, but they are mentioned in the cast-list of the article about the movie. So, this is not about the size of the role, but simply about the fact that well-known personalities were involved. And in the net, you find articles about the participation of the Clash members. Here's an Indiewire article. So, my compromise proposal to stop this energy-sapping discussion is that we list all the main and minor characters and create a subcategory for the cameo appearances. What do you think? Best regards from Germany,--FilmMusikUndAnderes (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Donaldd23 is walking a fine line on Wikipedia:Canvassing here. FilmMusikUndAnderes had edited the article and, if interested, had it watchlisted. Plus they had already been tagged in this discussion.

It seems your "compromise" between following the MOS and listing "the most relevant actors and roles... the cast members worth identifying" and listing everyone is to list everyone but designate some as cameos. I'm not sure where the non-notable actors playing "Street Scum" fall on that list. More to the point, I'm not sure why we should ignore the MOS in this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason not to do this is clear: because WP:FILMCAST tells us not to. The reason these policies and guidelines exist is to prevent editor's opinions from taking precedent. Minor roles and cameos are left out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would seem to be long enough.

Donaldd23's position is kinda muddled: they restored the entire list twice and characterized the discussion as being TheOldJacobite against the two of them (Donaldd23 & FilmMusikUndAnderes), strongly implying they agree. However, Donaldd23 then says Street Scum 1-9 are a stretch, leaving with a vague "significant parts...as well as cameos...that deserve some kind of acknowledgement".

FilmMusikUndAnderes seems to feel all of the parts are worth listing, possibly breaking out the cameos, with examples from other films where other editors rightly or wrongly feel that some roles in those articles are worth listing. I frankly don't see an argument for ignoring the guideline here in that discussion.

TheOldJacobite's position is pretty clear: Per the guideline, don't list everyone, and "I would support a consensus that argues for adding some other members of the cast, if a good case can be made for them. So far, no such case has been made." That seems reasonable.

Given the dead discussion here, I'm yanking the tag. No one doubts the four listed should remain. There is a solid consensus not to list the entire cast. There is no clear discussion (much less a consensus) on anyone else to include. If there are others who should be included, we'll need some discussion as to who that would be. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Good evening everybody, excuse me, that my answer took so long. I don't want to insult or harm anyone here, but for me -pardon me- this is a totally absurd and demotivating discussion, because some authors here don't read my answers carefully and insist on their right. That's why it took me so long to answer. I have been writing for the German and English Wikipedia for a long time -over 10 years- and created and edited a lot of articles about films and TV-series. That no more supporting roles and cameo appearances should be mentioned in articles about feature films in the English Wikipedia, I experience for the very first time. If you know the guidelines / rules so well, please answer me, why are small and supporting roles and cameo appearances mentioned in nearly every article about films in the English Wikipedia and why didn't no one delete them from the articles, like you do here? Here are only a few examples. And please check and read them before you answer me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Mad,_Mad,_Mad,_Mad_World#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean%27s_11#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_(film)#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Hotel#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Night_(film)#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Within_(1994_film)#Cast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruiser_(film)#Cast. Or why do you find the names of most of the actors in these foreign-language Wikipedia articles on the film "The King Of Comedy"? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Valse_des_pantins, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_rey_de_la_comedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Comedy, https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_of_Comedy, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_per_una_notte, https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%A1l_komedie. And unfortunately, what makes it even more difficult is, that some of the authors here, do not even seem to know "The King Of Comedy", otherwise they would not claim that Shelley Hack, Frederick de Cordova and Edgar J. Scherick would play irrelevant supporting roles in this movie. And if the WP - guidelines (WP:FILMCAST) are quoted here, then please do so correctly. It says there, too: "If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose." And persons, who appear in "The King Of Comedy" like Tony Randall, Don Letts and members of The Clash are "worth identifying". So, my suggestion is therefore to list all actors in three colummns ("Principal cast", "Supporting cast" and "Cameo appearances") like in the article about the film It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, or to mention the cameo appearances in prose like in a lot of other articles about films. Good night!--FilmMusikUndAnderes (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Final sentence in Plot section

Would rather get an opinion or consensus of some kind on this before changing it, but the final sentence in the plot description reads as follows:

The final scene shows a stiff Rupert taking the stage for a television special with a live audience and an announcer enthusiastically introducing him repeatedly, while Rupert himself forces a smile and nervously prepares to address his audience.

The references to Rupert being stiff, forcing a smile and nervously preparing seem completely wrong to me. I re-watched the ending to confirm and none of those things seem true, no stiffness, the smiling seems genuine and he doesn't seem nervous at all, he's behaving pretty similar to how any talk show hosts do during opening introductions like that. There's always the chance I'm misinterpreting things, but I'm 99% sure I'm not. To remove the ambiguity and any potential personal opinions on the matter dictating the description of this scene, is there any sort of reference for this maybe? Like De Niro or Scorsese talking about it? A released script? Although that last one is not necessarily going to be valid as things change between script and screen all the time.

61.245.148.179 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Unless there are sources that discuss this, it doesn't appear to seem that he is nervous. Removed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the ending all in his mind?

Rupert Pupkin is delusional and one has to wonder if it is "real" or ala Inception or it is in his mind. Film Theory: The Joker Is Not Real (Joker 2019 Spoiler Free) there are some reality "disconnects" (Rupert's fantasies) that make one wonder? Are their any reliable source that touch on this idea?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2024

• The King of Comedy (film) → The King of Comedy
• The King of Comedy → The King of Comedy (disambiguation)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is the only match for the name “The King of Comedy” (other entries are simply “King of Comedy”). Addressing any concerns about WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (such as with nicknames), Wikinav shows that the majority of visitors to the disambiguation page went to the film (86% for this September): clickstream data -- Dantus21 (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film/Core, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Film, and WikiProject Comedy have been notified of this discussion. Dantus21 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed move the disambiguation page to King of Comedy instead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have no issues with moving the disambiguation page to “King of Comedy” — Dantus21 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with moving The King of Comedy → King of Comedy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hello Necrothesp,

  Could you elaborate on why you opposed the first move (removing "(film)" from the page title)? Thank you. — Dantus21 (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly because it's not the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Get clarification on the primary topic question. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the 1982 Jerry Lewis film is arguably primary per long-term historical significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the status quo. The Scorsese movie is preeminent, but not to the degree that the changes this proposal makes would be indicated. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but I disagree that the film’s preeminence (or lack of relatively speaking) prevents us from moving the page. WP:PT2 (long term sig) is an important factor, but PTOPIC also states that in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant (italics mine). That doesn’t mean that long term significance is completely useless (I appreciate you for pointing out the film’s preeminence, even if you meant it on a smaller scale), but it’s not dispositive. With this in mind, we look at other factors to determine if the page should be moved, such as statistics. As shown in the clickstream data from the proposal, the overwhelming majority of readers looking for "The King of Comedy" are looking for the Scorsese film, fulfilling the criteria for not onlu WP:PT1 (usage), but also WP:TITLEPTM (sorry for not mentioning that in the proposal). We may still disagree after this, but hope this clarifies my position a little bit. — Dantus21 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)