Joker: Folie a Deux (2024)

[Harry Smolin]

Warner Bros.
Rated R
4K Flat & 4K Scope (film is 2.20; see full aspect ratio information below)
CCAP/OCAP, HI/VI, 5.1/7.1/Atmos
Total Package Size: 390 GB

Total Run Time: 02:17:49
Credits Start: 02:09:54 (same time for crawl start)

CPL files:
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_F_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_51-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_OV
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_F_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_71-Atmos-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240922_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_F_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_71-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_F_EN-XX-OCAP_OV_51-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_F_EN-XX-OCAP_OV_71-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240922_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_S_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_51-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240920_DLX_SMPTE_OV
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_S_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_71-Atmos-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_S_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_71-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_S_EN-XX-OCAP_OV_51-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240921_DLX_SMPTE_VF
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-4_S_EN-XX-OCAP_OV_71-HI-VI_4K_WR_20240922_DLX_SMPTE_VF

No trailers included with the DCP, though I checked with WB and they said they're expecting the trailers for Mickey 17 and Sinners to be run with the film.

Flat and scope R rating tags included with the DCP.
(Flat CPL: MPA-R-2D_RTG_F_EN-XX_US-R_51_4K_20210122_DTB_SMPTE_OV)
(Scope CPL: MPA-R-2D_RTG_S_EN-XX_US-R_51_4K_20210122_DTB_SMPTE_OV)

ASPECT RATIO INFORMATION:

This film is in the 2.20 aspect ratio. Both flat and scope versions of the film are provided, with instructions to use the version that best suits the size of the theater's screen and to not apply any additional zoom or scaling to avoid image cropping. When in 2.20, the film will intentionally have small black bars on the top and bottom in the flat version and on the sides in the scope version.

During both versions, the aspect ratio changes during the film. It changes once in the scope version and twice in the flat version. The flat version starts in 1.33 (I assume this is Sylvain Chomet's Looney Tunes-esque Joker cartoon that opens the film), then changes to 1.90 briefly, then again to 2.20 for the remainder of the film. The scope version starts in 1.33 (pillar-boxed to fit in the scope frame), then changes to 2.20 and stays there throughout. There are no time markers currently for any of the aspect ratio changes.

[Ryan Gallagher]

That note about the aspect changes differing between the versions is quite strange. Wonder what the thought process there was. Maybe the 1.33 section was considered essential, but the 1.90 section was not as important artistically and opted to avoid in the scope version. Strange because to my mind the 1.90 section would have looked less goofy in the scope version than the flat one. Maybe the flip from pillar to letter boxing was the intended effect, and in scope it's all pillar boxes anyhoo.

But getting both F and S DCPs for a 2.20 film is awesome. So often with the classic 2.20 films I only get one or the other. Thankfully we have zoom/masking that can deal with either, and technically speaking the F220 version contains more pixel information (but weighted towards vertical detail), scope contains less but does weight the detail horizontally more than flat does.

Aspect changes are a visual eyesore for us though, cause the smaller of them always ends up putting our keystone on display without any of our compensation tricks in play. One day maybe we'll have warp file transforms to deal with that.

[Harry Smolin]

It says in the projectionist letter that the film starts in 4:3, which is 1.33, but the demo image they give actually looks closer to 1.37. Maybe it's an optical illusion. I'll report back when I test the movie next week.

[Shibu Paul]

Indian Version English Language DCP Details: 5.1 and ATMOS 5.1 Durations 02:23:39

JokerFolieDeux_FTR-3-Censor-wTLR_S_EN-EN-EN-CCAP_IN_51-VI_4K_WR_20240926_EKN_IOP_OV
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-3-Censor-wTLR_F_EN-EN-EN-CCAP_IN_51-VI_4K_WR_20240926_EKN_IOP_OV
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-3-Censor-wTLR_S_EN-en-EN-CCAP_IN_51-VI-Atmos_4K_WR_20240928_EKN_SMPTE_OV
JokerFolieDeux_FTR-3-Censor-wTLR_F_EN-en-EN-CCAP_IN_51-VI-Atmos_4K_WR_20240928_EKN_SMPTE_OV

[Harry Smolin]

Tested the film today. It does indeed open in 1.33 with "Me and My Shadow," an animated pseudo-1930s Merrie Melodies cartoon (complete with theme music and vintage WB "rings" logo card) starring an animated version of the film's Joker. At the 3:07 (3 minutes 7 seconds) mark, after the Joker says "Knock knock" and is then beaten by policemen, blood starts splattering upward from below onto the screen, overshooting the 1.33 frame and ultimately covering the screen, until the image is fully 1.90 between the 3:09 and 3:10 marks. At the 3:10 mark, the blood morphs into an animated red theater curtain that then opens to the film's first live-action scene set in Arkham, again in 1.90. The film stays in 1.90 until the 5:06 mark when, after a shot of Arthur Fleck dumping a bucket of water into a sink, the image abruptly cuts to a now-2.20 shot of him looking out the window of his cell. It then stays in 2.20 for the remainder of the film.

We are running the flat version of the film with 2.20 masking and in a 2.20 lens, so the image from the 1.90 point onward appears in 2.20. Ryan, to your point, it does indeed seem like the 1.90 section was not as important as the 1.33 due to the 1.33 aspect ratio specifically mimicking cartoons of that era.

Shibu, the version you received is interesting because it looks like there are trailers hard-locked onto the feature file, a la what "attached" trailers must have been like in the 35mm days. I wonder how common this is in certain countries. We get trailers as separate files here, sometimes on the TrailMix transmissions or drives with lists of feature placement targets and sometimes with specific film transmissions or drives.

[Ryan Gallagher]

We are running the flat version of the film with 2.20 masking and in a 2.20 lens, so the image from the 1.90 point onward appears in 2.20. Ryan, to your point, it does indeed seem like the 1.90 section was not as important as the 1.33 due to the 1.33 aspect ratio specifically mimicking cartoons of that era.

Discussed in your other thread, but mentioning it here for others, I would wager the studio intended FLAT or SCOPE presentation with the letterboxing/pillarboxing and all to accommodate the other aspect changes, rather than mask for 2.20 presentation. If this is their words then that is the communicated intent as I read it:

"When in 2.20, the film will intentionally have small black bars on the top and bottom in the flat version and on the sides in the scope version."

Is it a bit goofy? Yes. Is it maybe a dumb choice presentation wise? Yes. But it does seem to be the intended presentation.

[Ryan Gallagher]

It's even extra weird because they gave you two versions to choose from. So they were definitely sending mixed signals here it seems, and no framing charts to make it abundantly clear what their preference is. I guess no one wanted this one to be shown in a flat container and preset on a scope screen just to accommodate that opening sequence, which is commendable I suppose.

So they definitely cared about presentation, but not enough to give folks framing charts.

If you were showing the scope version, it would be silly to leave the sliver of 2.20 pillarboxing visible when you have masking to hide it, cause the other aspect used does not need it either.

For the flat version it really depends on how they placed their other aspects sections. Within or beyond the 2.20 image.

It's hard to say letterboxing is intentional, when you also provide a scope version that has pillarboxing instead. lol Contradictions!

[Marcel Birgelen]

Actually, there is nothing particular weird about this release and I appreciate the way they handled it... I think it's the BEST way to handle it, given the reality out there:
The Scope version maximizes the screen real estate used by the movie for those for which their "Scope macro" offers the biggest screen and the Flat version maximizes the movie for which their "Flat macro" offers the biggest screen.

Scope fills the container completely on the vertical axis and thus results in pillar-boxing if not correctly masked.
Flat fills the container completely on the horizontal axis and thus results in letterboxing if not correctly masked.

Like Harry indicated: The first two minutes contain a "cartoon" in 1.33. If you're a real ninja and have a rather silent and turbo motorized masking system, you could even mask the first two minutes to 1.33.

Unfortunately, nothing you do will save the actual movie from sucking like an inverted leaf blower on jet fuel.

If you present this movie in a floating box, the way I had to see Megalopolis last week, like a cheap powerpoint presentation, you should be ashamed of yourself. :P

[Ryan Gallagher]

Yeah, I guess I’m voicing an objection to their included instructions, which seem to state the letterboxing and pillar boxing are intentional, obviously written for fixed aspect screens without movable masking. I hate that they have to accommodate this subset of the market.

With the scope version, the best presentation when masking is an option is relatively obvious. It is the flat one that kinda hinges on how they built the aspect changes.

If built for fixed flat screens, like is suspect it is. Either you’ll be cropping some of the 1.33 and 1.90 sections to make the 2.20 look good and masked, or you’ll be showing their letterboxing through 95% of the film just to avoid cropping the opening sequence.

Perhaps they did it “correct” though and everything is within the 2.20 frame to allow masked houses to do it properly, letting the fact fixed flat screens will have window boxed sequences for the first 5min ride. Or maybe cropping a bit of the opening sequence was fine and intended, if so they should specify or include a 2.20 chart.

I don’t have this one in hand so perhaps I speculated a bit too much about the worst way they could have delivered that flat version.

[Marcel Birgelen]

With the scope version, the best presentation when masking is an option is relatively obvious. It is the flat one that kinda hinges on how they built the aspect changes.

They used the 2.20 "container" as the bounding box and everything happens within it for both versions. Both in the scope and flat version, the picture always fills the entire "2.20 container" vertically.

There is no "graceful" transition, I don't think the distributor/director really intends exhibitors to "live-adjust" the masking, let alone changing lens macros during the presentation. The overshooting blood effect is essentially a gimmick that transitions us from 1.33 to 1.90. The masking needs to be at least at 1.90 when that happens, or otherwise the somewhat wall-breaking effect is "ruined". I guess the transition from 1.33 to 1.90 and then 2.20 is an artistic choice, where the movie essentially "opens up" to the viewer, so the image is supposed to get "bigger" and "wider" in the first few minutes. I leave the metaphorical implications to your imagination.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Thanks for the clarity on how it was built (EDITed to Delete previous reply).

[Ryan Gallagher]

Cool, so they built it for masked houses as I would have hoped... as I'm sure there are better ways to handle that sequence for an unmasked flat screen. So is the language in their exhibition notes just warning unmasked houses about the letter/pillarboxing and encouraging them not to attempt to correct it out of fear of cropping the 2.20 frame?

Cause for everyone else, seems like masking to 2.20 regardless of which one you play seems like the real intent. I've only encountered TV creatives where the letterboxing, when not visible, makes them get all nervous and 2nd guess what they are looking at.

[Harry Smolin]

Those aren’t their exact words. I was paraphrasing in an attempt to translate diagrams they sent as part of the projectionist letter into text. Screenshots of the full projectionist letter with their exact words attached. Sorry if I threw anyone off; I should have made that clearer when I first posted.

More on this to come in the Lens Reset thread, but I ended up switching to the scope version on our largest screen in 2.20 masking and lens, zoomed in to fit the size of the screen. I may switch the two smaller ones as well, but the flat version in 2.20 masking and lens seems to be working fine there for now. There isn’t really a noticeable difference between the two and nothing appears to be cut off.

It was the same situation for Oppenheimer last year and Universal included a framing chart and sent very detailed instructions on how to use it to test which version better suited your screen, along with instructions for hybrid screens that were neither fixed at flat nor at scope to use the chart to determine which version would produce the most image. No such instructions nor a framing chart for Joker. I’d guess our screens are considered hybrids since they can switch between standard flat, standard scope and all the special flats and scopes, and the instructions seem like they would apply mainly to fixed flat or scope screens.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Those aren’t their exact words. I was paraphrasing in an attempt to translate diagrams they sent as part of the projectionist letter into text. Screenshots of the full projectionist letter with their exact words attached. Sorry if I threw anyone off; I should have made that clearer when I first posted.

Ahh thanks for that, no worries. I think only I was getting confused over here. ;-) But I have to say, their diagrams for the flat version contradict was Marcel just said about all the content fitting within the 2.20 region (the 3rd in the sequence). Now i'm even more confused... thankfully i'm not showing this one. ;-)

If I was i'd be tempted to say that the flat version, if built like their diagram, is only for unmasked fixed flat screens. And everyone else should use the scope and mask to the 2.20 image. But if they built it the way Marcel said instead, then use the one that best matches your screen, but it may look kinda dumb for a few minutes on an unmasked flat screen.

[Mike Blakesley]

Our screen is 15x30, but we have it masked down to the proper size for scope films. The masking is from the bottom up, rather than being equal on the top and bottom. (This is intentional to make the picture be higher up on the screen, to help out short people in the audience.) So we can run either version.

Considering it was a "made for Imax" movie, I tried running it in Flat but then it just floats in the middle for the bulk of the show, that's not acceptable at all.

The film stays in 1.90 until the 5:06 mark when, after a shot of Arthur Fleck dumping a bucket of water into a sink, the image abruptly cuts to a now-2.20 shot of him looking out the window of his cell. It then stays in 2.20 for the remainder of the film.

If I run the Scope version with the masking up and using the Scope setting, I don't see any difference in the picture at the 5:06 mark. It still has the same borders on the sides and fills the screen from top to bottom. So I guess I'll run with that.

Is there some other combination that's better? Given the lousy crowds it's drawing, I give less of a shit than usual but I still give a shit.