Talk:The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)/Archive 1

Margot Robbie
The source used to confirm Robbie's casting doesn't state that she has been cast in the film, it just mentions that she is in talks. Is there a better source around that actually confirms she will appear in the film? Also, how reliable is thehollywoodnews.com? - JuneGloom    Talk  17:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Character names
All of the characters names in the movie have been changed except for Jordan and maybe his father. Danny Porush is called Donnie Azoff and Nadine is called Naomi Lapaglia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.182.153 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

digital/film
"shot Hugo digitally because it was being filmed in 3D" ~anyone else sees the problem with this sentence??? Villings (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary errors
Having just returned from seeing this, as is my wont as a good WP:FILM member, I looked over the article and particularly the plot summary. It's generally accurate but it seems like there are a few plot points which, while they may be strongly implied, are not explicitly stated in the film:


 * "He is arrested when his car is found badly damaged, indicating he was driving while intoxicated, but is let go on a technicality". Um, "nobody could prove I was the one driving the car" is not a technicality, it's the most fundamental legal reason for the police to let someone go (Yes, he was driving the car, but while we the audience know this the police in the movie do not).


 * "Belfort and Azoff take with their wives to a boating trip in Italy, where they learn that one of their main clients, Steve Madden (Jake Hoffman), is pulling out due to Belfort's recent problems with the law". While they suspect this is the reason he's doing this, nothing in the film says this directly.


 * "To mitigage his sentence, Saurel rats out Belfort" Unencylopedic language.


 * "Azoff then gives the note to the FBI to save himself." A possible explanation for how the FBI got the note, but not the only one, and the film doesn't say this.

It could also be trimmed down and tidied up. I'll attend to this later. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also it described Bo Dietl as his lawyer, and it described the sex scene with his wife at the end of the movie as "rape". I fixed both of those. 24.220.190.225 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception
Why is PETA mentioned in the "Critical Reaction" section? PETA is an animal rights organization; they have nothing to do with film criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.180.71 (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSFILM recommends the section be called 'Critical response'. PETA is not a professional film critic but they are a critic of the film in the wider sense. It is not worth creating a subsection for. If there was more Controversy then perhaps it would be put elsewhere but in most cases it is a practical decision. -- 147.252.95.71 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jordan R. Belfort
The film ends with Jordan R. Belfort introducing Leonardo DiCaprio as himself. Cameo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.169.35 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual content
I think the entry should depict the controversy regarding the sexual content of the film, by far the most of any Martin Scorsese film, and the fact that despite it, it didn't earned a NC-17 rating.85.241.230.123 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles generally avoid commenting on the local ratings for films, based on the guidelines for Wikipedia film articles. In this case the director recut the film to avoid the NC-17 rating and get the R rating instead. This is covered in the release section. It is only because it was unusual and notable that the rating gets mentioned at all.
 * If you do not think it has been given enough emphasis and can find sources discussing it perhaps more detail can be added. If you can find more sources where the filmmakers talk about cuts (or aspects of the book omitted or embellished) there may be reason to expand the production section and talk about the editing process.
 * Recommend some good sources and editors might help include more coverage in the article. -- 109.77.155.209 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of PETA quote
This doesn't have anything to do with the movie. They aren't making any specific claims that animals were abused during the film's production. It's nothing but a typical "latch on" quote. As such, it's been removed. If there are reliable sources which site specific abuses or investigations during the filming, then put it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.42.117 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted you once for removing sourced content without discussion. Leaving this comment is not the same as gaining WP:CONSENSUS. Please give other editors time to contribute to the discussion before unilaterally removing properly sourced content. — Josh3580 talk/hist 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing news coverage, it looks like this warrants inclusion. I also found this from The Guardian. I am not sure where we could include such coverage, though. Maybe we can have an "Animal training" subsection under "Production" with some detail of chimp Chance's involvement and mention the organizations' concerns there. Right now, there's no mention of the chimp at all. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Give me 1 reason why it should be included? Are they making the claim that an animal was abused on set? What was the abuse? Or, are they making the claim that ALL training of chimps is abuse? There has to be a specific reason to include it. The source doesn't give one. Are you saying it's okay to include a generalized PETA quote on all films that use animal actors? Because PETA calls all training abuse? If they don't have any proof, let alone knowledge, that abuse occurred, why would that generalized quote be given such weight? This is just another case of an over anxious editor who doesn't give a single reason why it should be in the article in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's sourced. For that matter, where is the consensus to even put it in originally? 98.209.42.117 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so we follow what others report. Wikipedia has a policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information, and the policy states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There are independent reliable sources that report on these organizations' statements about the use of the chimp in the film, so I think it is worth summarizing these statements as part of the film's background. It should not be a "Controversy" section. There are guidelines at MOS:FILM, which was why I proposed providing some general context about the chimp's involvement, then summarizing these organizations' complaints about it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then how about including an opinion piece from people who hate the movie because they think it's too long? Or an opinion piece by people who are mad because of the number of times they use a specific curse word in the movie? It's not a controversy because PETA doesn't like them using a chimp in the movie. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I put it back where it was in the "Critical response" section. As I explained above it fits well enough there as anywhere. I also added the poll PETA asked people to sign and HuffingtonPost as an additional source to show this got coverage and is WP:NOTABLE. a cursory web search is more than enough to show this got lots of coverage, even if I dislike PETA as shameless self publicists this easily passes WP:NOTABLE. (Jonah Hill and the goldfish maybe not.) -- 109.77.163.195 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC) (Three handlers for just the goldfish!!!) - 147.252.95.79 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been removed again. It's undue weight and NPOV. There are no specific allegations of abuse. Just an opinion on what PETA thinks is abuse. If you include it, then you could include sources countering PETA's opinion. That doesn't belong here. The Rosaire family has provided animals to many movies. Why isn't PETA and their beliefs mentioned in every single one of those Wikipedia articles? You're giving too much weight to PETA's opinion. It doesn't matter if it's a reliable source when it doesn't belong in the article to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.42.117 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The organizations' statements are worth noting because numerous independent sources have reported on them, which gives it some due weight to mention in some capacity. It may not be a stand-alone section; it could be a mention of the chimp's casting in the production section, with an added sentence that summarizes these organizations' concerns. If there are responses to these statements that have also been noted by independent sources, we should note these too. If PETA comments on every film that has animals, these comments are not often reported by independent sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are at least 3 people here saying to keep it, and apparently only one person in favor of removing it. we're past 3 reverts at this point, the consensus is not on the side of deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.161.210 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me try to go a step further and consolidate all the coverage I can about this matter. I'll include responses and counter-responses where applicable. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a "Use of animals" section but could not find any response from the cast and crew about the concerns about using the chimp. Does anyone know of a source? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DiCaprio has been sensibly quiet on the subject. In the articles I read about Jonah Hill, he claimed he would have eaten the goldfish but didn't want to upset animal rights activists. (I'm glad the note was retained but it now seems a bit large so I'd support changes that expressed things more briefly.) -- 109.77.155.209 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I shortened the Variety quote. I was thinking to put FoA's concerns more in context, like why this is an issue for them even if there was no physical abuse. Does that shortening help? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That helps I think. When the rest of the article is expanded more, things will balance out better I hope. I expect the article will gain more detailed production information and greater critical insight, not just good or bad but more critical examination of different aspects of the filmmaking process, commentary on the script, cinematography, directing, performances. The article is only getting started. -- 109.76.228.204 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

pump and dump?
The plot summary says they were doing a pump and dump scam. I don't think that's accurate. They were making money on the (50%) commissions. In a pump and dump, you're buying cheap, driving up the price of the stock, and selling high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.60.245 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

– The only other article with this name is The Wolf of Wall Street (1929 film), which is a stub article about a lost film, and all the other articles are based on nicknames. I think this is an obvious WP:PTOPIC, unless the book gets its own article. Note: The Wolf of Wall Street currently redirects to Wolf of Wall Street, hence my suggestion that Wolf of Wall Street be moved.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  06:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film) → The Wolf of Wall Street
 * Wolf of Wall Street → The Wolf of Wall Street (disambiguation)


 * Neutral, leaning to oppose - First User:Corvoe why do you think the 1929 film was "lost"? As far as I can see from plentiful sources it looks like the silent film was remade mid-production as a talkie, so it wasn't "lost" in any sense, in fact it is notable as George Bancroft's first talkie. Second David Lamar (1876–1934) in books is the original "Wolf of Wall Street", Belfort is only named after Lamar. Third, whether Belfort's book has a standalone article or not isn't really relevant either to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or to WP:DAB. The fact is it's included in Belfort's bio article so what difference would someone WP:FORKing it make? This is whether long term (i.e. in 2020) people are going to look back and not remember Lamar, Belfort's book, the 1929 film, but only the 2013 film? WP:RECENT is affecting page views now but when in doubt it's best to have a clear title Titanic (1997 film). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize, at some point when I read the article I could've sworn it had "lost" in the lead paragraph. My bad. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone would type in "the wolf of Wall Street" if they were looking up Lamar. He wasn't known exclusively by that name. Also, David Lamar's page views are rather low, presently only 45,089 views in the last three months. Next ,hard to say anyone will remember Belfort's book for any reason other than its inspiring of the film (the book doesn't even have an article right now). The 2013 film is now a multi-Oscar nominee and Golden Globe winner, and is directed by one of the most prolific directors of all time, not to mention it stars one of the most famous actors of the modern era. The film will almost definitely stand the test of time as far as nobility is concerned, where as the 1929 one only has 52,769 views in the last three months and the 2013 film has almost 2.4 million views in the last three months. That's completely unprecedented, especially since that three months pre-dates the 2013 film's release. Hard to call recentism on that huge a numbers gap.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support; seems to be unnecessary disambiguation. The 2013 version has been more widely seen than the old (attempted?) one, and the book likewise seems to have not reached as wide of an audience. In ictu oculi is dead on, however, about pageviews being a lot more misleading about an extremely recent film. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here only via the long-term significance criterion. I am neutral about the move of Wolf of Wall Street, however, because it seems to me that someone typing in "wolf of Wall Street" may well be looking for one of the men listed, as well. It's a complicated situation and I'm eager to see other perspectives on this move request. Red Slash 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure if the 2013 film should be treated as the primary topic for this term which predates both the memoir and this film. It looks like it has been used in different ways throughout the 20th century. These are results from Google Books. These from Google Scholar shows a little more. In addition, I am finding that the memoir itself is notable and would warrant a Wikipedia article. I just think that we are bad about creating book articles as opposed to film articles. Memoir sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (from a preliminary search). With the term "wolf of wall street" (usually seen as "the wolf of wall street") floating around (as an idiom or something like it), I'm not sure if the primary slot should go to this film, which is making big headlines right now. I do find it very likely that it will be an enduring topic, but its being derivative gives me pause here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:RECENTISM. The memoir of the life of Jordan Belfort is also "The Wolf of Wall Street", so a moniker for that person, so that person "Jordan Belfort" is also likely. I also don't see a reason to move the disambiguation page. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not being funny and I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean "the person Jordan Belfort is also likely"? Belfort had articles about him called "The Most Famous Con Man You've Never Heard Of" because, prior to this film, what he did was not very well known. He's no Bernie Madoff or Ponzi. That, and his memoir doesn't have it's own article, so whether people are looking for it or not, they won't be able to find it. Not to mention the film is already far more notable than the book.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  12:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As mentioned, those typing The Wolf of Wall Street may be looking for Jordan Belfort, whose article appears to have had ~600k more views than the 2013 film over the last 30 days (though not necessarily via TWoWS), and I agree that an article on the memoir of the same name is likely warranted. Combined this leads me to believe that the 2013 film isn't a clear primary topic, so a disambiguation page is best suited at Wolf of Wall Street. benmoore 22:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please create The Wolf of Wall Street (novel) to fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per RECENTISM and WP:NCF.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment if this isn't moved "The Wolf of Wall Street (disambiguation)" should be created as a redirect -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Audience response
The audience response section should perhaps either be made larger or cut altogether - it does not seem to serve much purpose as it seems to be just a bunch of muddled anecdotes, and doesn't seem to reflect the true overall audience response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.223.127 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles take time, and in general gradually improve. Hold on before recommending throwing things away! In most articles a lot of this kind of information would be folded awkwardly into the Critical response section (and then you'd have the other problem of people complaining it didn't fit, suggesting only professional critics can have a "Critical response").
 * Earlier versions of the section included claims that the audiences were divided, or words to that effect. It was not well supported by sources, using unreliable user voted web polls, but looking at bit further it seemed like there might be enough information to support the claim.
 * I took those earlier edits in WP:GOODFAITH and looked for more sources and did a little cleanup. I added the Cinemascore, with proper explanation that C is not an average score but actually a very poor score by their standards. Others added sources, the suggestions that there marketing may have been a factor in audiences responding negatively (I think this was a particularly good find). I was interested to read a source about how an audience of business people might react to the film, you might not think it is WP:NOTABLE but it contrasts starkly with the previous sentence about victims of financial fraud. (It provides a source for an opinion that CollegeHumor.com presents as an insightful parody, mocking people who will like this film for the wrong reasons but CollegeHumor is an indicator, not a suitable source for Wikipedia. Some of the reviews from critics probably make this point too.)
 * You might not like the section, I can see it might be improved, but I do not think for a second it should be removed, and for me it hits some very interesting points. -- 109.79.209.95 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The picture drawn by the "Audience response" section is a very negative one. This seems to be in stark contrast to its outstanding rating on sites like IMDb (where it is an all-time top 100 movie after more than 150,000 user votes). It also seems to equate "audience" and "audience in the US". Axedon (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that voters in web polls have even seen the film. IMDB polls are notoriously prone to ballot stuffing by fans (self reinforcing, people only bother to vote if they are film fans and then tend to vote for the very best and very worst) and completely fail consideration as a reliable source. I wouldn't even consider looking at what those polls claim until it has had a few years and many more votes to settle down into a clearer pattern.
 * If you can find other reliable sources please add them. CinemaScore is not the only audience survey company (e.g. RenTrak), but CinemaScore is widely published. The wording could be adjusted to clarify that CinemaScore surveys are taken on the opening days of the film, but the early reaction was negative, so the section is negative (and we even have source that took the time to consider why, with the conclusion that the marketing was poorly targeted). It stands in contrast to the largely positive response from critics, and the Box office takings also in another way indicate a different kind of positive response.
 * It is a small bit of negative in a largely positive article. There is no need to try and balance out the section but again if you can find reliable sources, then add them. It is very difficult to find reliable indicators of audience response, that is why we largely stick with Box Office results, and Cinemascore surveys. -- 109.76.192.248 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Links
[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/it-libidinal-economy-stupid-201411991730302886.html >> It's the libidinal economy, stupid! ](Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)).

There aren't any links to Stratton_Oakmont anywhere. Seems like that should be remedied? I would do it, but the page is semi-protected for me. - chrisstreeter —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jonah Hill
I don't find it fair not include him in the billing areas, as he is credited on posters like this Rusted AutoParts 18:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, we aren't using that poster in the infobox. So I'm not sure what to do. The article says "SMS is a part of organizational culture and affects the way people do their day-to-day activities. There is no standard model for SMS, but the ICAO has identified criteria that must be included in an SMS. Therefore, the number of components and elements in an SMS may vary in different countries. You may want to review the section, History of Safety Management." The billing block is the credits at the bottom 1, none of the major american posters have a traditional billing block, but I found the Japanese billing block that has it here. It lists the following:


 * Jonah Hill
 * Margot Robbie
 * Matthew McConaughey
 * Kyle Chandler
 * Rob Reiner
 * Jon Bernthal
 * Jon Favreau
 * Jean Dujardin.

So that's the billing block. Can we use that? Or should we wait until we find an American version? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's a billing block, we should use it. Rusted AutoParts 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in an older discussion above, the official website has the billing block here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik, that seems to be the same as I mentioned above. If that's the block, let's use that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, to go on record, I'm supportive of using the above list of names. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I object to the failure to indent things properly like the rest of the Infobox. (Why do people hate indentation so much, you wouldn't fail to put a space after a comma would you?) Aside from that you can use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to justify including whatever billing block you like, the guideline is just about stopping endless sprawl. See Talk:Captain_America:_The_First_Avenger for example, where they use the DVD billing block as reasonable example. Also fix the indentation already. -- 109.78.225.28 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you mean about the indentation? I'm not seeing what you mean. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't see how one plain list is unlike the other plain lists in the infobox?
 * I even said "you wouldn't fail to put a space after a comma would you?"
 * The other lists include a space after the asterisk.
 * Wikipedia must be full of Perl programmers or something, you'd probably complain if punctuation was compulsory. Python programmers understand that other people might try and read and improve what they have written so punctuation and indentation is very much compulsory from the start. Wikisource would be a lot easier to read if people didn't keep ripping out all the spaces. Maybe none of you use the default editing tools either and have the ugly hidden away. -- 109.78.225.28 (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean now. You mean the spacing between the bullet points and the actors' names in "Starring"? I did not see a difference outside the code. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request "Overseas"
The_Wolf_of_Wall_Street_(2013_film) uses the word "overseas" when it should use a word such as "international" or "other territories". The film guidelines already warn to be careful about terms such as domestic (and foreign) and this is another mistake that guideline was designed to avoid. -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Good catch.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre
Please stop editing the genre. It doesn't matter how a film is marketed as per WP:OBJECTIVE and WP:RS and WP:OR, we need high quality third party sources to discuss the genre. Not just what a marketing team thought would get the most butts into seats in the theater. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC) On attempting to find the genre for the film, I've taken it from several sources: I could find more, but most sources seem to lean towards comedy. I'd drop out things like "biographical" in the lead because it's not really needed. The second sentence says it's based off the life/memoirs of whathisname. Looking for second opinions and further research before go out with this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian refers to it as a thriller: source
 * Allmovie calls it a Drama with subgenres being an addiction drama and crime drama. source
 * Total Film refers to it as several genres: Comedy, Drama, Crime, Thriller, Biography.
 * La Times states a "They go at the black-hearted comedy full throttle"
 * Globe and Mail: "a really funny comedy"
 * SF Chronicle : "Black comedy"
 * Empire: "a jet-black sex and drug-soaked comedy featuring a bravura performance by Leonardo DiCaprio."
 * AV Club: "But who could have predicted that he’d turn it into a flat-out comedy" source.
 * Biopgrahic because its based on a true story. Crime because it is a true story of crime. Comedy as it been called by critics, the actors and director as a comedy. Sources provided, the matter is settled. The ones calling it a drama are wrong. Rusted AutoParts 22:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Before editing the article, let's discuss it here. A few points first:

Most sources I've found here call it comedy more than crime or anything else. We don't get to decided the genre on our own (WP:RS & WP:OR), we need to find a consensus based on actual material. Please post your findings here before just adding a dozen citations in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The film has been referred to several different genres. We can't just choose which ones.
 * I don't think we need to add biographic to the lead as it already states that in the next sentence. That's bad writing. I'd like thoughts on that
 * What the actors and director calls it is not important as we things like genre are subjective. So we need third-party sources. Not people involved with the project.
 * I posted the very fair compromise of "biographic crime-dramedy". I really don't care to waste my time over this. Any further revert shows you're purposely starting trouble. Rusted AutoParts 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for a compromise, I'm looking for a simple well written intro based on research. From my research, very few have added crime in there. Can you give me some input to where people who have seen the film are calling it a crime film? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Google pooled together it's pool of information from sources and gave four genres for The Wolf of Wall Street: "biographical film", "comedy", "crime fiction" and "drama". With this, I came up with the once again very fair compromise of "biographic crime-dramedy", which covers all four. It seems pointless to find consensus when all genres are clearly stated. Rusted AutoParts 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:HITS, a hit count on what you found on google should never be used to make these kind of decisions.

Some more sources: I'd appreciate if you take some of my suggestions above, or at least answer them. Or have patience and what for other editors to chime in on an opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rogerebert.com "Comedy, Crime, Drama" source
 * Time Out New York "Drama" source
 * Hollywood Reporter: "The real-life story being told may be dramatic, but much of it is played for comedy, sometimes to the edge of farce, " source
 * Slant "Early on in Scorsese's long, flatulent black comedy, mid-level Wall Street shark Mark Hanna " source.
 * sigh I did! Drama is in there! Comedy is in there! It's up there as dramedy, how is that not taking drama into consideration? How is "biographic crime-dramedy" incorrect in the slightest? This just seems like you want to have it your way and to hell with the reader having an accurate genre description. Rusted AutoParts 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My arguement isn't to include drama. it's to make it as simple as possible. "biographic crime-dramedy" is not really nice to read. I think at the most we should have either one or two genres describing the lead. From the citations above, the one's i'm finding the most is comedy, so I'm now leaning towards that. If you can find more high quality sources that would suggest that's not the way to go, then post it here. Since genre is objective, there is no "one true answer", the user can decifer what they are getting into from a plot description in the intro which already states that it's covering the life of a person (this already tells the reader it's biographic). What's hard to cover is that the story is told for laughs, so I'm leaning towards just having comedy. Very few sources said drama, so I'm thinking leaving it as comedy. what do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the sources available so far, my first impression is that we could do without "biographical" if we are going to say it is based on someone's memoir anyway. We could also reflect the criminal exploits in a second sentence, providing the premise of the film. So coming back to the genre label, it seems that black comedy is closer to the mark than comedy-drama or dramedy, based on hits on Google News. Otherwise, we could leave an actual genre out of the lead sentence and find a way to report a mix of comedy and drama early in the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Black comedy" is the simplest descriptor based on reliable sources and the actual movie. "Dramedy" does not describe this film, and "biographical" is not needed, as the next sentences (and rest of the article) make it clear this is based on a book based on a life. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. So with Erik and Wikipedical seem to think black comedy is the way to go. If there are no further objections, i'll change the lead tomorrow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going with comedy. Thanks for your input everyone! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why comedy and not black comedy? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...right. Sorry about that. I'm used to adding more simple genres but I think black comedy will help the user's understand the film's tone more. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use that horrible neologism "dramedy' (sounds like a type of camel) ever. It also doesn't fit, black comedy is far more appropriate description. -- 147.252.95.71 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * this whole discussion is silly. Different critics categorise it in different ways. None of them is definitive. There are two valid alternatives - a) don't put a genre; b) describe it in factual terms - it is biographical. It is dramatic. It is a crime film. "Black comedy" is just some critics' subjective attempt to pad out their reviews. The Coen brothers make black comedies. Is this a black comedy? No it's not.192.96.206.212 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

K.I.S.S. It's a comedy. It is not black comedy because it has only one black humor joke, the one about Rob's death. All other humor is more akin to the Beach Girls than to any black comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.85.64 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Numerous sources call it a black comedy, and I think you are interpreting the definition too narrowly. It's not about joking about death, it's about the tone of irreverence in treatment of the amoral subject matter. If you Google the film title and the term "black comedy", there are reviews that label it as such. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction edit
I think the last line in the introduction needs a minor change. Currently it reads: "It is historically significant as the first major film to be distributed entirely digitally." This is a little ambiguous as it implies the home release is digital only in addition to its distribution to theatres.

I think it should instead read (or something similar): It is historically significant as the first major film to be released to theatres entirely through digital distribution. Craigthomas1 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good call. Changed your wording slightly.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  22:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - film rights money
I felt guilty watching this movie. In the article, it briefly mentions that $XXX dollars were spent for the rights to this movie. how much did Belfort benefit from that? did any of that money go to his victims or were the viewers making him richer by making the rights to the movie worth so much? Does a Son of Sam law apply in this case? can you add a section that describes how much money that Belfort made from this movie and if any of his victims received restitution from the proceeds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.96.146 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot section
I noticed today that there is a maintenance tag for the plot section. I don't know that I agree with this. I think, despite WP:FILMPLOT, that a three-hour film should be an exception. While 991 characters might be a bit much, I don't know that we can restrict this film's plot to a mere 700 words. I'll give it a shot now, and I encourage others to try as well, but I think it's very unlikely we can include the noteworthy stuff within 700 words. Thoughts?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Source Material
How well does the film correspond to the book? This is always a question I have when a film claims to be based on a true story. This article could use a section like that, but I can't write it because I haven't read the book. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't make much difference if you had, as we would need reliable sources to back up or refute comparisons. I have read the book, and the film (with the exception of names) is very accurate in a lot of its portrayals of events from Belfort's life. Some were fictionalized and exaggerated, of course, but overall it was pretty close. I'll look for sources on this to expand the article. Good suggestion! Sock   ( tock talk)  13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Qualuude overdose bit
The plot summary includes the scene where Belfort overdoses on Qualuudes and trashes his car as he drive home, then snorts cocaine to the music of Popeye. Should we include this sequence? Although it's long and funny, I don't see how it's a key turning point in the plot. It looks like just another scene showcasing Belfort's irresponsibility.Kurzon (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The entire scene is pivotal in that's how the FBI got most of what they're using against him, because Donny called the Swiss banker while high. --2003:71:4E3F:3390:89F5:A5B8:5FA:E638 (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

FBI Eyes ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Ties to Malaysian Fund at Center of Corruption Probe
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking at assets owned by the family of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, including a film company set up by his stepson that produced “The Wolf of Wall Street,” as The Wall Street Journal reported today in a page-one story. The stepson, Riza Aziz, burst onto the Hollywood scene with his company Red Granite Pictures in 2010.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/12/29/fbi-probes-wolf-of-wall-street-ties-to-malaysian-fund/

213.152.161.165 (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moviethatmatters.com/gay-orgy-gone-wolf-wall-street-censored-banned-overseas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Budget
Did Scorcese go over budget? Earlier versions of the article listed the budget as $85 million and this was later changed to $100 million (and the new source Hollywood Reporter mentions how Scorcese went overbudget on Hugo). -- 15:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.149.122 (talk)
 * As for the budget, it had now go up to $155 million according to "Wall Street Journal" article.Kelvintjy (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Cast List
I realize that only DiCaprio is given billing on the theatrical poster (which makes sense, since he's the main character), but an official billing block is provided on the film's website; if you go to www.thewolfofwallstreet.com and scroll to the bottom, there's a link called "Film credits" that, when clicked, shows the official credits (in billing block format too). I think the cast list in the infobox should reflect this, since listing only DiCaprio really doesn't provide any meaningful information. This is how I formatted the infobox earlier when the credits were originally provided, but they have obviously been deleted. Robber93 (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree.
 * To gain more support it would help if you could prove that the poster without the billing block is a teaser and not the final theatrical release poster since the guidelines recommend using the official poster and not the teasers. In many cases the official theatrical release poster does include details like the billing block that is omitted by the teaser posters. -- 109.76.176.174 (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it does seem strange to limit it to DiCaprio considering that it's not really a solitary movie like All Is Lost. Not sure who added the note, but am pinging editors who have contributed to this page:, , , , , . What do you think of using the official site's film credits? The image that is referring to can be seen here. That would be eight names total. Seems like a reasonable rule of thumb to follow. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't view the site at the moment, but I think just having DiCaprio in the infobox is not really in the same form as other infoboxes and may confuse users. How many people are listed on the website? I think it would be be beneficial for readers if that cast was expanded upon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's eight names. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the note, largely because people were violating the guidelines without any consensus (seeing as a website is not an original theatrical release poster). I'm personally not opposed to adding the names based on the website's billing block, if that's what's agreed upon.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to cast list, should the cameo by the real Jordan Belfort be mentioned? He is the guy presenting the movie Belfort in the final scene of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.175.2.123 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Budget redux
For the budget we have two sources cited.

The first, Box Office Mojo, unequivocally says the budget was $100 million. 

The second source, for openers, is not the Wall Street Journal. It is Malaysiakini, extensively quoting a piece in WSJ. The cite should be corrected to reflect this.

This source says, in part, "Investigators in two countries believe that US$155 million (RM603 million) from 1MDB went to production company Red Granite Pictures to make the 2013 hit movie ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, according to a Wall Street Journal ( WSJ ) report....according to people familiar with the probes, and supported by documents reviewed by the global financial daily....'...according to people familiar with the subpoenas,' said the WSJ report." and "Red Granite raised US$100 million to make ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’..." Long story short, the article details a WSJ report claiming there is an investigation of financial shell games involving $155 million allegedly eventually ending up in a ledger for the film's production. If true, that would be in addition to the $100 million raised through traditional channels to fund the film.

From this third-(or more) hand allegation of $100 million plus $155 million to a production budget (citing both sources) of $155 million is three parts synthesis, two parts jumping to conclusions, with a dash of misreading.

We have one reliable source directly stating the production budget was $100 million. We have another source reporting that a reliable source says there was $100 million raised for the production and "reports", "people familiar with the subpoenas (according to the WSJ)" and what WSJ says "investigators...believe". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Wolf of Wall Street" drawn into corruption probe
Reputable sources are now reporting that this film was allegedly financed with money stolen from the people of Malaysia:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36852755 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)
 * Also: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/wolf-wall-street-financed-3b-malaysian-fraud-web-u-s-article-1.2720234 --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Wall Street Journal not a reliable source? Someone just undo the edit saying that the article from Wall Street Journal is not reliable.Kelvintjy (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (I didn't see this comment before adding mine, below. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

Shouldnt there be something in the lead about the corruption scandal that this movie is intertwined with? I feel like it's pretty notable to the development of the movie that it had trouble getting financed until then. Falphin (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aamarillo. Peer reviewers: Aamarillo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jlongarzo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)