Talk:Taxi Driver

When was its release date?

The article itself says "The film was theatrically released by Columbia Pictures on February 7, 1976"; but the article's sidebar says February 9. Which is correct? Josh (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Psycho(melo)drama: Raging Bull and Taxi Driver". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 256–264. ISBN 078642348X.
• King, Mike (2008). "Taxi Driver and Crimes and Misdemeanors". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 176–177. ISBN 0786439882.

High

Critcally noted as scorcese's trifecta with raging bull and goodfellas, oscars, IMDB 250. Andman8 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Taxi Driver considered a pastiche?

Can you elaborate? -- Zoe

Jesus, what's the deal with User:Tarquin? She just deleted the link asking why anyone would care about what a taxi driver thinks of the film.

well it's like this: if you're going to link to one person's review on the web, you might as well link to them all. What makes that one special? Are they a well-known film critic? -- Tarquin 10:07, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

"he takes her to a pornographic film"? Does he? I thought it was a sex-ed film, but those were often shown in porn cinemas in the US. // Liftarn

It's no sex education film I've seen, but yes, you are correct. The IMDB entry on Kärlekens språk, the Swedish "information film" that's Bickle takes her to, mentions it shows actual coitus, something I don't think like that is shown in high schools, even nowadays. However, I could see it being one of those things, because of the display of sexual intercourse, would be shown in a porno theatre in the '70s. Of course, it could've been the only thing Scorsese could get ahold of and figured he could pass it off as a porn flick. --YoungFreud 04:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was a sex education film, at least in Nordic countries. It was shown in local film theaters and even our teacher suggested us that we should go to see the film. This took place in Finland in the 1960s.

The film was called an "Information Film", but that was always code for Swedish skin flicks. There aren't many orgies in sex ed, for example. You have to remember that this was the early 1970's and even in Times Square things were somewhat repressed so they had to have silly double speak in order to get things by standards codes. --TheGrza 07:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It comes under the sexploitation category, a film which claims it is educational, but is really a skin-flick. Until pornography laws in the UK were loosened in the early 2000s and high street newsagents were allowed to sell hard-core pornography, this 'rebranding' was often used as a way of getting porn into the country. Martyn Smith 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I have added references to the fact that Bickle is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, plus a few key points relating to Vietman vererans in the 'critical response' section.--ChrisJMoor 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Travis a Marine?

I changed the line added "has recently been discharged from the Marines" to WHO CLAIMS THAT HE (has recently been discharged from the Marines) as the only evidence that Travis was a marine comes from Travis himself and throughout the film he is shown to invent stories about himself.

Interesting point. That he was a Vietnam vet was news to me, something that would make sense... given his age. But is there any other reason for asserting this—the patches on his jacket, perhaps? —Morning star 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In the screenplay, Schrader indicates the patches on his sleeves, one of which is King Kong Company and the years. I can't recall the years at this point, but I'm pretty sure the patch is readable in the movie, which would confirm he is a veteran. Gohst 04:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the word "Vietnam" is never explicitly mentioned in the movie. Which is interesting in and of itself. -MB (9 September 2006)

Check out the massive scar on Travis' back when he's working out. Admittedly this might actually be DeNiro's scar, but if it was meant to be a combat related scar from Travis' time in Vietnam it may also help to explain his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or if that's not adequate his simple disillusionment with society i.e. 'What was I at war for'. Phlippit (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Small, but interesting detail is a Vietcong flag in his apartment, which appears on the screen for around 2 seconds in the first shot showing Travis' living space. 77.96.64.16 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Travis was definitely a Marine. There are several reasons I believe this. One, the burning of shoe polish is consistent with Marines spit shining their boots. Two, the way he wraps the cloth around his hand to shine his boots is consistent. Three, the tape he uses to secure his knife to his boot is consistent with the cloth type tape that was issued when I was in the Marine Corps. It's like athletic tape, but not exactly. I can't remember the name of the tape.

As for the word "Vietnam" being mentioned in the movie, it is actually mentioned by the Senatorial Candidate for the Presidency when Travis is sitting in his cab, watching the Senator give a speech, right before the cop comes up and says "Hey, cabbie. you can't park here." Vicioustwist 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Travis was a Marine who served at least one tour in Vietnam. In the opening scene when he interviews for the taxi driver job, Travis mentions his honorable discharge from the Marines in May of 1973, and that his age is 26. Assuming that the time line of the story is either 1975 or 1976, it would be completely plausible that Travis could have served in Vietnam as early as 1968. (The full-blown war in Vietnam ran from about 1964 to 1975.)

Travis wears clothing all throughout the movie which are apparently left over from his days in the Marines. Travis can be seen wearing a yellow faded Marine Corps PT T-shirt turned inside-out when he exercises in his apartment. Near the end of this movie, just before Travis picks up Betsy as a fare, the back of one of his green jackets can be clearly seen with "Bickle T" stenciled upon it in faded black ink. I was not in the Marine Corps myself, but I would say that names and initials being stenciled on the outside of clothing is quite characteristic of military service. --Kepiblanc 06:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just finished watching the DVD. If you pause the film during the last scene when the "New York Times" article on the wall is being shown, you can read that Travis served in the "Special Forces in Vietnam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.64.83 (talk • contribs) (18:06, 28 May 2010)

What you saw while watching the DVD would not be acceptable as a reference in the article. If, on the other hand, you were to find a book, or other source, in which this is mentioned, that would be another matter. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Having seen this film many times since its initial release and being a former Marine and Vietnam era veteran myself, my view is that Travis Bickle was a Marine but did not serve in Vietnam. Nowhere in the film is Vietnam mentioned. As posted by some commentators, there is a Viet Cong flag seen in his room at the beginning that could have been found or bought anywhere; even a battle trophy from punching out an anti-war protestor. As mentioned, Travis does shine his shoes in the manner of a Marine, does "Airborne" pushups (propelling yourself off the ground and clapping your hands; when done in massive repetitions you often hit the deck with your body and face) and has his name stenciled on the back of a non issue jacket (Scorese's homage to Sands of Iwo Jima?). I have heard that some Stateside Force Recon wore Mohawk haircuts for a while in the early 70's to terrorise anti-war protestors but were forced to remove them. He wears a "fantasy" coloured shoulder patch and incredibly, wears what looks like Marine Corps jump wings on the wrong (left) side of his jacket; something a real Marine who earned them would never do. Having just reseen the film on the big screen I tried to read the newspaper articles in the background, but as they were not frozen frame I could not notice any mention made of Vietnam. I found it incredible at that time that 'Ex-Marine' or 'Vietnam Vet' would not be mentioned in a tabloid style headline. In 1975 the US Veteran's Administration had a statistic that three out of every four males over the age of 18 had some military background, whether regular, reserve, National Guard, etc so it would be more surprising that Travis did not have any military experience. Only about half of the USMC is what is called the Fleet Marine Force; Three Divisions and Three Air Wings that deploy in combat. The rest would be base and ship's detachments in the US or Okinawa. Of these FMF Divisions and Air Wings, only two, the First and Third, were in Vietnam. As Travis states when he approaches the taxi company, he was honourably discharged in 1973. As the average Marine enlistment was three or four years it is well possible Travis was a Marine but never served in Vietnam. (I also wore my Ka-Bar upside down but under my jacket rather than on my leg).Foofbun (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think - whith respect to the above in particular - that the whole point is that you can never actually be really sure of Travis' past. Travis is given to storytelling - maybe his assertion about marine service is just another fantasy. You don't know. He "wears the t-shirts". So what? I have a t-shirt saying "I love New York", but I've never been there in my life. In the post shooting sequence someone has spotted a newspaper article saying that Travis served in the marines...but as others have said elsewhere you can't really tell whether that last scene is "real" or a delusional fantasy dreamt up by a dying Travis. And I think that the film was made that way deliberately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2o2o2o (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand the wings are the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Viet Nam) ones and therefore is the correct side to wear foreign para wings on a US jacket The US wings would be on the lefthand side . found some examples of U.S.ARMY jackets and shirts on the web with that configuration, so I guess it would also apply to the USMC. I also noticed that above the left, tape patch was removed....that maybe just prop used surplus jacket  : Hope I did not say something wrong, just thought I would post my latest research regarding Travis' M65, Oli 13 january 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.211.233.142 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael D. High's article "Taxi Driver and Veteran Trauma" gives all the supporting evidence as to why Travis is a veteran who has experienced combat, even though screenwriter Paul Schrader has been ambiguous on the point and Travis lies (to himself and others) throughout the film. In Scorsese on Scorsese, the director says "It was crucial to Travis Bickle's character that he had experienced life and death around him every second he was in south-east Asia " (Scorsese, 1989: 62). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.13.141.243 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Jodie Foster's age

Foster's age was just changed from fourteen to twelve. If she was born on 19 November 1962, that would make her thirteen for most of 1975. —Morning star 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If Jodie 's birthday is 19 November 1962 she turned 13 on November 19 1975 and she was 12 during almost the year 1975. The film was released in February 1976 so Jodie was 12 when it was filmed and just 13 when the movie was released to theaters. Ik.pas.aan 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Duuh. Sorry for one of my dimmer moments. —Morning star 05:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Foster's character really supposed to be 12 1/2? My impression was that her pimp said she was 12 to imply she still had virginal qualities. Regardless of appearance, she seemed to posses the composure of someone older than that. -Bantosh 21:20, 7 May 2006

External links

Before adding any further external links to this article, please discuss them here and let the community reach a consensus. I'm adding this dicussion here because this article is being repeatedly linkspammed lately with a link to sensesofcinema.com. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear AbsolutDan and other self-appointed Wiki-police: Perhaps if you read the article being "linkspammed", as you so elegantly put it, you would learn something useful about the film. Is not the entire point of Wikipedia that anyone who has something to contribute can do so? I do not feel that I should offer obeisance to your "community" or justify the article's inclusion. What you are doing in trying to centralize editorial control is a tremendous disservice to scholarship. This behavior is absolutely outrageous. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/37/taxi_driver.html --crazyeyezkillah

Wikipedia is not the place to promote other websites. Linkspam is, simply put, links that are spammed onto Wikipedia -- added to promote a particular site, usually across multiple articles. If left unchecked, articles would quickly become "bottom-heavy" with more external links than content. I removed the links I saw to senseofcinema because they were posted by a spammer, and were added with no additional content. WP needs more content, not external links --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: Hello, is this website a positive contribution to the External Links part? It's a comparison on the famous 'Talkin' To Me' scene which is used in Taxi Driver and La Haine. Flash video footage of the both scenes is available. http://repcred.com/movies/talkin-to-me

---

In the "Trivia" section, written is both:

" The only scene that doesn't feature Travis is the one between Sport and Iris talking in her room. This was added late into production."

and

" Harvey Keitel rehearsed with actual pimps to prepare for his role. The scene where his character and Iris dance is improvised, and is one of only two scenes in the film that don't focus on Travis."

By "focus", does that mean "not feature" or "he is not the most important character". If it is the latter, then surely there are many more scenes in the film which are debatable? 88.106.65.140 12:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The only *scene* I can think of that does not feature DeNiro is the Iris and Sport talking and smooching one. Scene in filmic terms roughly equates to chapter in a book, a self-contained portion of the greater work, often with a verifiable beginning and end. DVDs are usually broken up into scenes in this way. I think the assertion that there is a second portion of the film that constitutes a scene not featuring Travis is incorrect, and will edited that line Martyn Smith 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sequel?

I remember reading something about De Niro and Scorsese working on a sequel a year ago I think. If I remember right, then someone should add that to the article.

The sequel section's final sentence is a misrepresentation of its cited source. I'm going to delete it or re-word it unless someone objects.Chickendijon (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trivia section

The Trivia section is much too long, and much of it is probably pointless. If I don't pull a bunch of it out soon, someone else should. --Xyzzyplugh 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed a few of the entries that were cut and pasted from imdb, but it's still too long. I thought about starting a production or background section and moving the relevant pieces from there, but the problem is that they aren't sourced, and in some cases seem contradictory (the inspiration for the character of Travis Bickle). If someone wants to verify the information, great, otherwise it should just be removed. - Bobet 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would Robert Deniro do a sequel what plot would there be, it would just be him picking up fares another reason is that Robert Deniro is now 65 what's he going to do pull out his bus pass and say "you talking to me". ---- matthew suter---- 18:33, 10 june 2008

Novelisation

I have what must be a fairly rare copy of the novelisation of Taxi Driver, written by someone called Richard Elman and published by Bantam Books in 1976. The ISBN is 0552101281. I haven't been able to find out much about the author although there's a little here. Where should this go? Trivia, or a separate section? Or is it even worth mentioning at all? Incidentally, the same author seems to have done the novelisation of Smokey and the Bandit... Lexo, 15.52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

'Coke' movie

I remember julia phillips (who did have a drug problem) saying in her autobiography that this was a 'Coke movie' referring to the drug (cocaine) consumed every day by participants in the movie. Somebody could check this and then mention it in the article.

No they shouldn't, it's not notable in any way.Vonbontee (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's notable; do it. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see why it's notable at all. If drug use had any real impact on the film - like, if an actor was too coked-out to perform on a particular shooting day, or if Scorsese claims that such-and-such a scene or a directorial choice was conceived during a cocaine fantasy - then obviously it's relevent. Otherwise, I don't think so. (But if anyone still feels the need to add it, I'll just shake my damn head and leave it there and not try to delete it. Unless I should happen across the article again someday when I'm bored.)Vonbontee (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The ending

The ending is Robert de Niro successfully impressing a girl by getting famous then deciding he doesn't like the girl for liking him for being famous.

No it isn't. He just still feels detached from her and everything else; as well as holding resentment for her for rejecting him in the past.--Tainted Drifter 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the shootout scene, Travis kills a man who is an apparent mafioso. (I am referring to the man who wears the thick frame eyeglasses and plaid print leisure suit.) This man in the leisure suit is seen collecting a considerable sum of money from Sport just before he heads up to see Iris, and his holstered revolver can be briefly seen as he pockets the money. All of this would be uncharacteristic of an ordinary patron of prostitutes, but not of a mafioso who is making a protection money collection from a street pimp.

Since the mafia will typically seek to quickly retaliate against any outsider who kills one of their own, perhaps the reason that Travis quickly adjusts his rear view mirror just before the credits roll is because he catches a glimpse of a carload of hit men preparing to shoot him to death.--Kepiblanc 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone was going to shoot him then they would of done it because when the credits come up you see Bickle driving through quite a few streets and pick up a fair,maybe he just saw something or someone he didnt like. ----matthewsuter--- 16:55 18 august 2008

Thelma Schoonmaker did not edit Taxi Driver

I have made the correction to the credits box per the IMDB listing.[1]
JohnC 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you notice in the shoot out that the mafioso shoots Travis in the arm at close range why not just shoot him in the head common of movies in this genre. ---- matthew suter ---- 18:38, 10 june 2008

Notes from Underground

someone should mention that the story is influenced by dostoevsky's notes from underground (ie. it quotes it directly "I am God's lonely man").

The quote is from Thomas Wolfe's essay, "God's Lonely Man", which is quoted and accredited to Wolfe at the beginning of the film. That's not to say that Dostoevsky's work wasn't an influence, but the quote is from Wolfe. PCLM (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative analysis

I dislike the new "Alternative analysis" section because any analysis violates Wikipedia:NPOV and there are several errors in that section. --Wasted Sapience 12:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's original research, and tangential. Makes the article too long. Delete? --Nick 19:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

House Of Pain Lyric...

It's 'Holy Diver', not 'Holy Godiva'. 'Holy Diver' is a Dio song. I don't know what 'Holy Godiva' is. Someone please correct.

Shane reference

Isn't "you talking to me...I don't see anybody else here" a reference to a similiar line in Shane (film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.120.123 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus:

Shane: You speaking to me?

Chris Calloway: I don't see nobody else standing there.

—SlamDiego_←T 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

hi there

by the way i think this is a pretty good article and i want to congradulate the writer(s). i know not every one on wikipedia likes the trivia sections in articles but for a film like taxi driver which has made a huge imprint on popular culture, e.g. it was referenced on the simpsons, family guy e.ct. and every one konws the "you talkin to me" quote i think it should have its own popular culture section, just a suggestion. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabe Wiki (talk • contribs) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Redrect

Why am I redirected here for Charles Palantine? --Arav the Undersith (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A search for the string “Charles Palantine” within the article would answer your question. Googling for “Charles Palantine” would alos answer your question. —SlamDiego_←T 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

History

I removed a claim that the movie inspired John Hinckley Jr. to try to assassinate George Wallace. First, John Hickley Jr. tried to assassinate Reagan, not Wallace. Second, Wallace's would-be assassin was Arthur Bremer. Third, a movie that came out in 1976 could hardly inspire an assassin who struck in 1972. Whoever submitted that information, good job. Phanatic (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The viewer's mind?

I am somewhat inclined to fact-tag this assertion

Any lingering doubt in the viewer's mind about Bickle's insanity is obliterated when he is suddenly and shockingly shown to be sporting a crude Mohawk haircut at a public rally in which he actually attempts to assassinate Senator Palantine.

for the simple, saddening reason that all three of my dorm roommates one term were convinced, at the end of the movie, that this character was a hero of profound inner wisdom. —SlamDiego_←T 16:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything he does in the movie, even just up to that point, and he's crazy because he got a Mohawk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.5.146 (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Assassination attempt or protection?

My interpretation of the scenes involving Senator Palantine was that Travis was genuinely inspired by the Senator and wanted to protect him. While Travis is watching the Senator on the TV, the Senator says that "the people should rise up" and do something about helping to clean up the city. This contributes to Travis' decision to become a vigilante.

In the scenes where Travis attends Palantine's rallies, Travis sees himself as a protector to the Senator, helping to keep him safe from the "scum" of the city and he sees himself as similar to the secret service agents. This is why he tells his parents and Iris that he has secret goverment work to do, and he seems to believe it himself. When he reaches his hand into his jacket he is only getting ready to protect the senator as he passes through the danger of the crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.220.162 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source for any interpretation we find here. We can't, no matter how amazing, insightful or well thought out, provide original research ourselves. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My friend, you have totally misunderstood the scene. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was quite clear that he was going to assassinate Palantine in order to get back at Betsy for rejecting him.--77.103.237.230 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to American Gigolo/Light Sleeper/The Walker

I recall hearing an interview with the screenwriter Paul_Schrader on the BBC in 2007 or 2008 (possibly to Mark_Kermode) in which he asserted, in a fairly unambiguous manner, that he intended the lead characters in Taxi Driver and those other films to be the same character. Of course, now I am having trouble locating that clip. Has anyone else heard this? There are suggestions that Schrader intended the characters to be similar, for example on the page for Light_Sleeper, but no assertion that the characters were identical. At any rate, there is no statement connecting Taxi Driver to the other three films, while there are statements about some sort of relationship to this movie on the pages for the other three. Any reason not to mention whatever verifiable relationship exists between the films here? KASchmidt (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, after you find a verifiable relationship, let's discuss it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is a reference cited on the Light_Sleeper page: [2]. In it, the interviewer refers to Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, and Light Sleeper collectively as Schrader's "man in a room" films, and Schrader discusses the central character of those movies as though he's one character.

KASchmidt (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And here: [3] is the (audio) interview between Kermode and Schrader I mentioned above. I'll hold off until someone else has listened to it so we can see if we agree that it means what I think it means, and where it would belong in this article if that's the case. KASchmidt (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems worth mentioning to me. Go for it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it logically fits with any of the sections already in the article, so I'm tentatively making it its own section. If anybody wants to try to fit it in somewhere else after it's up, I'm okay with that. KASchmidt (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's in. It is however extremely short. I don't know if beefing it up or putting it in a different subheading is the way to go, but I'd be happy with either. KASchmidt (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversies.

I have not read of Ms Foster being 'subjected to psychological tests' during the making of the Movie. People were appointed to study the scenes she was to appear in and adjudge with Mr Scorsese if they were appropriate for her well being. Ms Fosters sister stood in in some of the scenes where concerns about their appropriateness for a child as young as Ms Foster were raised.Johnwrd (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

citations

really, for a plot about a movie, occasionally there is a footnote referencing the movie? this is just silly, folks. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If....

It says in the wikipedia article for the Lindsay Anderson movie if.... that "Martin Scorsese revealed that Robert De Niro's character in Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle, was named after McDowell's character in if....." Couldn't this be added in the Production section? I haven't been able to find citation for this though. Any help would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.153.176 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Yes please. There is nothing in the Travis article that isn't in-universe and perfectly appropriate to put right here. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I believe this page has enough to stand on it's own. It contains enough real-world info. - WölffReik (talk · contribs) 21:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge.... the Travis article is unnecessary duplication. Dlabtot (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose To put it in the most simple way, this is a memorable character and a memorable line to go with him. In-universe, isn't much an issue here. (Since grammar and cohesion is a gradual change). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to oppose as well. As far as single-film characters go, this is a notable example. Both the film article and the character article have not received very full treatment, and I believe that with the significance of the film, Travis Bickle would be appropriate as a sub-article focusing mainly on the character. Erik (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Firearm details

The sentences about the guns Travis Bickle buys seem unnecessary in the plot summary. They might better be listed in a separate section afterward.Cephal-odd (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought this too. Just reading the plot section, there's far too much detail on what gun is being used at each given moment to be deemed necessary. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed most of the specific mentions of guns, except for the first listing of the guns he bought. However, I removed the following and bring it here for discussion:

When Bickle fires his guns on the range, his Model 36 becomes a .38 Smith & Wesson Model 10 snubnose revolver, his Smith & Wesson Escort becomes a .25 Sterling Arms pistol, & his Astra Constable becomes a Walther PPK pistol.

This is original research, as someone apparently watched the movie and made observations of these supposed changes. Without a source, this cannot remain in the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

If we were talking about vandalism, gibberish or an off-topic rant, it might be appropriate to remove. But it is a case of somebody talking about something in the film and a plot point about which there has been discussion. Why not simply move the material to the appropriate section 'Travis a marine?'? No editor has the right to unilaterally decide which talk page comments are relevant. Please simply restore the material rather than force some tedious wiki-process. WP:TALK covers this in detail. Dlabtot (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. What we are talking about is a person who watched the movie and then decided to add his opinion. Now, as we both know, this is not acceptable in the article. If someone were to change the article and then say, "I saw it in the movie," he would be informed that this is original research and not acceptable. And, you are wrong again with your comment about editors unilaterally deciding which talk page comments are relevant. We have to make such decisions, because people are constantly using the talk page as a forum for their opinions, just as in this case. Now, if he had posted a message saying something like "According to this critic, Travis was in the Special Forces," that would be a different story. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The removed comment was not as far off as much of the discussion here and deserved a reply (like what you just provided) - especially if you look at Diabot's contributions so far. Just my opinion. It might stimulate an interested editor to look for your hypothetical critic. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually reviewed WP:TALK since this started? It seems not. You are falsely applying the standards for an article to a talk page. Plus, your understanding of our sourcing rules seems to be a bit deficient. The film is perfectly acceptable as a source in an article about itself for plot points and the like. Yes, the talk page is a forum for people's opinions about how to improve the article. With all due respect, I suggest you follow the talk page guidelines and refrain from deleting the comments of others unless they are "gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) (or) test edits" Dlabtot (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Location of Iris's tenement

It was incorrectly stated in the article that it was in Alphabet City. The address, based on the envelope Travis wrote to Iris, is 240 East 13th street, which is between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. Alphabet City begins east of 1st Avenue. The external shot of the building shows "226", street unknown. Halda (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images

Regarding this edit: still no rationale has been given to explain why this picture is needed to illustrate anything in the article. Sure, her character generated a controversy; but what does a picture tell the reader about that that simply saying "she's 13 and a prostitute" doesn't? Consider looking through WP:NFCC and responding to how the image meets each one of those criteria.
And, even if the image is kept (which I still argue is not necessary), someone would really need to fix the lousy NFUR at the image page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I could care less really; the section is called 'controversies' and her character illustrates one of them, so... HalfShadow 00:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Why is the image needed? Just because a character is important doesn't mean an image is necessary; an image is only justified if something important about the visual makeup of the image is being discussed; compare to the non-free images in FAs like Street newspaper, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, Sozin's Comet, etc.

If you couldn't care less, I assume you won't mind if I remove the image (again)? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-release

As of right now, the film has been re-released on a small scale to theatres in celebration of its 35th anniversary. However, I am unsure where in the article to put this. Karrmann (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver image listed at Files For Deletion

Please contribute to the discussion here. The image was originally uploaded for this article but recently removed, and did not have a non-free use rationale. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ending: Travis dreaming?

The article isn't mentioning the possibility that Travis might be dead or are still in a coma at the end, and the last part is a dream. This is open to speculation, and while I like to think he is alive, I have read interpretations suggesting he is dead or near dead in the end, and the last fare we see is just a dream. I've watched the film twice and I think this is very possible. Because we can't know if it's a dream or not, both possibilities should be mentioned in the plot section, now it just assumes he has recovered and actually drives taxi again. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by Urbanus Secundus, the last paragraph of the plot summary is incorrect. Scorsese is subtle in not hitting the viewer over the head with it, but it is fairly clear, upon reflection, that Travis never stands up from the couch in the apartment where the shooting takes place. He sacrifices himself for Iris. The coda (pan across room, letter read aloud from Iris' father, encounter with Betsy) never happened, they only happened in Travis' mind, they are his final thoughts before death. They are his idealized vision of the aftermath of his violent escapade, and furthermore, his justification for doing so. The letter from the father and the encounter with Betsy are totally idealized representations of what Travis wishes would happen after his heroic deeds, society will be grateful (father) and impressed (Betsy). If you think about it, there is no way that Betsy would ever behave in such a pleasant/impressed way with Travis upon encountering him in a taxi, and Travis would not be as suave or cool about it as he is. This is all happening in Travis' mind, they are *why* he undertook his actions, he wanted to impress Betsy and win the respect of square/normal society and even exist as an outstanding hero in society -- but the trouble is, he is a confused and angry loser and isn't connected enough to society to perform well in it as a policeman or something else, he has to undertake unsanctioned vigilanteism which, even if it works, will not be accepted as honorable or laudable, even if his intentions are ultimately good. It would be hard to write the summary in a way that is not inaccurate, however I do insist that the current summary, which takes the final scenes as actual parts of the plot, is inaccurate and does a disservice to those trying to understand the movie. --Priceyeah (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely subjective, you can't say that that is what actually happened because that's your own interpretation. The plot synopsis is not supposed to be a story of what a movie critic thinks happened, it's just a plain and simple exact summary of what actually happened on screen. Alexysun (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Kicking his pill habit

A Norwegian commentator wrote today in a national newspaper that this movie might be the one that comes closest (går tettest innpå) to the 7/22 massacre at Utøya.

However, part of the plot was represented like this, "On his spare time, he isolates himself, eats pills, conducts weapon training and plans the aksjonen."

Maybe our article should say that his physical training commences with him kicking his pill habit by emptying his pill container into the toilet. --Sywoofer (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sequel footnote issue

Footnote 36 leads to a dead link. This seems like a fairly controversial statement considering the classic status that this film holds. Can we get another (and more reliable) source on this? If not, the entire text referenced by footnote 36 should be reconsidered. --SodiumWage (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SodiumWage (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest that You talkin' to me? be merged into this article. I do not doubt the phrase's notability, but that article says nothing that cannot be said here. It is a very short article, and could be tightened up a little more, so there is no danger of overloading this article. If it is merged, I think we will also have a better opportunity to keep out all the speculation about the line's origins, and trivial nonsense about its influence. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — I think it has notability problems on its own article. In fact if I were you I would just go ahead and do it, and if someone reverts the merge then have this discussion then. (If you do copy it in, don't forget the copy attribution in the edit summaries) Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. As there was no further comment in the last week, I have performed the merge. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You talkin' to me?

I was hoping to get some feedback on an edit I made to the article. A few weeks ago, I added this under the section about the famous quote: Although the image of a person uttering "You talkin' to me?" while facing a mirror may be best known from Taxi Driver, the earliest known instance in popular media came in an episode of The Twilight Zone. In the episode Nervous Man in a Four Dollar Room (first aired on October 14, 1960), Jackie Rhoades (played by Joe Mantell) speaks these words to his reflection: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Oh yeah. Yeah, sure you are. Now me and the mirror we're havin' a talk. I've had it huh? All my marbles are gone. This is how it happens." It was removed. I certainly understand the motivations of the editor who removed it, and believe that he acted in good faith. Therefore, I figured I'd get some feedback. What do you all think? Riffraff913 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting parallel, but I don't see any evidence that the one was based on the other. Without that, this is just speculation. Interesting speculation at that, but still speculation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Sugar with Jam in Iris / Travis Breakfast scene

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct forum to ask this question.

Today is the first day I have watched this movie.

I was surprised and intrigued to see the Jodie Foster character spoon sugar on her toast & jam in the breakfast scene with Travis, having previously noticed this meme in the breakfast scene of The Falcon and the Snowman, when the Falcon (Timothy Hutton) spoons sugar onto the jam on his toast, when breakfasting with the Snowman (Sean Penn).

I think The Falcon and the Snowman came out about a whole decade later than Taxi Driver. I don't really know anything about this meme, but it seems to me a metaphor for wanting some more satisfaction in life, as if the sweet jam is not enough to satisfy the character, and more sweetness is needed for the character to feel satisfied.

Would anyone care to comment?

Alpine Joy (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the bread–jam–sugar breakfast is given in the 1999 documentary Making Taxi Driver. Pololei (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Language of Love

That Language of Love would be the movie Travis takes Betsy to see is a misconception. A very common misconception, and one that can be found in decent sources beucase they've had no reason to question it, but nevertheless untrue. Elisabet Björklund at the University of Lund discusses this in her 2011 article "‘This is a dirty movie’ – Taxi Driver and ‘Swedish sin’" in Journal of Scandinavian Cinema 1 (2) pp. 163–176. The scenes are from the American sexplotation film Sexual Freedom in Demark, with added Swedish sound. /Julle (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The abstract here mentions a misconception but doesn't say what it is. I can't find any free versions of the article online, though.Sjö (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not open access, unfortunately. But yes, this is the misconception in question. /Julle (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot / ending

The ending section of the plot sounds like it may be missing something. It first goes in to detail about what sounds to be murder by Travis of at least two individuals (possibly killing the mobster was in self defence although considering he invaded the place, I'm not so sure, but in any case the description of killing Sport and the bouncer definitely sounds like murder or at least manslaughter). Of course the only witnesses are Travis and Iris, and it's possible Iris was so traumitised or grateful that she wouldn't tell what really happened. And the victims being fairly dodgy themselves may not have had much sympathy from the police. There's also the apparent attempted assassination of a senator, but perhaps the Secret Service agents didn't get a good enough look at him that they could identify him. So it's not hard to see how the movie allowed Travis to get away with it, but there should be some minimal explanation. If the movie had no explanation, this should be mentioned too. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Title of article

I believe that this page should be chnaged in title to 'Taxi Driver(1976 film) to distinguish it from other movies and the proffesion. --Lawrencegordon (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for that. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. You'll be shot down faster than a pimp in a brothel. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, TheOldJacobite, you have not given a proper reason to why this page's name should not be changed. There are many movies called Taxi driver and this can be confused very badly with the profession. I am not meaning to offend you, TheOldJacobite, I am just giving an opinion.--Lawrencegordon (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

First, do not remove other editor's comments.

Second, Taxi Driver is the primary topic for this name, even if there are other films or other search terms that are similar. When people search for Taxi Driver, this film is what they are looking for, for the most part, so it is the primary topic. That is why there is a dab link at the top of the article, in case someone came here by accident. But, you will never get support for moving the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Lawrencegordon, you went ahead with this page move despite two editor's objections. You should revert your changes and explain your actions. Lugnuts, please weigh in here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the original title. @Lawrencegordon: - please see WP:RM#CM - "The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply" and then see the points below that. If you feel strongly about the move, please go to WP:RM and start a discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in, it need not be disambiguated from the profession—Taxi Driver and taxi driver are two different pages (the latter currently redirects here but does not need to). As for being disambiguated from other media using the same title, I can't think of a single one off-hand, which to me would certainly be an indication that this is already the primary subject of the title. I would oppose the move. GRAPPLE ^X 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see Personal Shopper for the same situation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also agree that title case is sufficient disambiguation. Additional examples are Pulp Fiction, Hall Pass, Panic Room. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lede

I have restored the version of the lede from the middle of last month, before the recent changes. The recent edits, especially the unexplained changes to the genre, need to be explained here. All of the genres were sourced, so they should not be changed without discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Likewise with the plot tag for OR. I don't see anything obvious to flag this. Maybe the IP editor would care to expand on it... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taxi Driver. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302175446/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/taxidriver.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/taxidriver.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914170410/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Educational research

Hello,

We are a group of students from Queen Mary University of London who are doing a research project for a film class.

We are required to edit for educational purposes. Our usernames are User:Ruxiih, User:jade.dfr, User:Westfieldway, User:livmaris, User:JoeRogerson12, User:Oxterito.

Queen Mary University of London Student's Changes Proposal

When we found the Taxi Driver article it was long and had a lot of detail and information. However, we saw signs for little edits such as fixing bits of the references, tidying up and breaking down the lengthy production and synopsis paragraphs with very slight and subtle changes. Additional writing on the brief description of the film specifically highlights the classification as the film as a Psychological Drama. There previously was no mention about the director, Martin Scorsese's, influences by drawing a slight comparison between Taxi Driver and The Searchers (1956 film), with evidence of Scorsese stating so himself.

We also adapted the controversies section, breaking it down slightly into briefer sections and added a little bit more of the referenced information.

Sections modified: -External links -Controversies -'You talkin' to me' -Production -Synopsis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxterito (talk • contribs) 13:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Themes and interpretations

removed the first interpretation as it was by an unknown professor with an unknown degree and the publication of the quote given was unknown in the reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

clunky sentence

"The climactic shoot-out was considered intensely graphic by a few critics, considering an X-rating for the film" That just doesn't read right. I can't see the source material but this should probably be reworded. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

What is happening to the genres?

Before I recalled them being 'psychological drama', although some people really wanted to add 'thriller', which has been referenced in a roughly 70-page book by film critic Amy Taubin, but she also mentioned 'psychodrama'. Additionally, her mention of 'neo-noir' is not supported by the Allmovie and AFI references (& her allusion to 'horror' is very likely not supported by most sources per WP:FILMLEAD).

The Les Keyser source lacks inline citations, & its publisher, Twayne, as well as Les Keyser himself both lack their own Wiki pages. Either way, only 2 or at most 3 genres are meant to be allowed, so this needs a trimming. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Taxi Driver/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 16:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be starting the review of this article shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead and infobox

• Alt text could be added to the film poster.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Producer Julia Phillips, Editors Marcia Lucas, Tom Rolf and Melvin Shapiro, the production companies, Columbia Pictures, the release date (!), and the country of production are unsourced.

As with other GA-articles, the poster serves as the source for the infobox for the producers, editors, cinematographers, billing block of actors, production companies, and distributor(s). That being said, a source has been added only for the release date. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sort of ok with that but only one production company is listed on that poster and two are in the infobox. This is why I prefer citations if possible, as to "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE)Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, your citation to a release does not match the content you added. As per above, this information can easily be added to the prose, I suggest putting the citation there once you can clarify when the film was released. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

, is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article.

 Question: What? All I see on my screen is ", is unsourced". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Whups That appears to be some leftover thought I didn't finish. Sorry about that. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• The citation for the running time in the infobox leads to a 404 error page.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "neo-noir psychological thriller" genre in the lead raises some issues. It appears to be just a drive by citation adding where someone googled the genre they wanted the film to fit under and added a boat load of sources. However, these sources currently ignore what some citations state. For example, one states "Taxi Driver, crossed the psychological thriller with the horror film". So should horror be included here too? Does it actually fit into these genres? These needs a revamp.

Removed genres as in Fight Club. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• the Les Keyser sources link to a book , but not any page numbers.

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• the AllMovie source states the genres as "Drama" which is not what the source says here. It also states in its prose that the film is "Taxi Driver is an homage to and reworking of cinematic influences, a study of individual psychosis, and an acute diagnosis of the latently violent, media-fixated Vietnam era. Scorsese and Schrader structure Travis' mission to save Iris as a film noir version of John Ford's late Western The Searchers (1956),", so I guess this is supposed to be a citation for neo-noir? But that's not what the article says per WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

See above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• As the genre seems to be a point of contention, some research on how the film fits into genre could be good and could warrant its own section, possibly under interpreations, etc.
• The lead should cover more content of the production of the film. It currently skips from a brief intro summary of cast and director and plot than jumps to reception. More information should be added regarding the films production, controversies, and perhaps the themes and interpretations.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Plot

• There seems to be an excess of wikilinks to common terms people don't really need links to (New York City, infatuated, etc.)

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some parts of the plot seem to be intepretations of the story which should be removed, specifically "Travis is disgusted by the sleaze, dysfunction, and prostitution that he witnesses throughout the city, and struggles to find meaning for his existence". Perhaps write something he does that suggests he is doing this?

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Cast

Per WP:FILMCAST, . "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. 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." We seem to have an excessive list of the cast who don't seem to have speaking roles or even named characters. Is there a reason to include them? If not, you can probably remove the ones lead to characters without any major dialogue, are not mentioned in the plot, or are actors who don't have their own section on wikipedia.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

• the lead part of this section seems to just toss in the budget, but the source given shows more information which should probably be included (the original budget was 1.3 million than swelled to 1.9. what made it go in this direction? When did this happen? I feel like we are missing out on some key information.)

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The information about describing Travis Bickle's character seems to be a mish-mash of character interpretation and how Scorsese envisioned the chraracter but also how he wrote him and how it turned out. This is weird to have in a section before pre-production and seems to go against the standards of MOS:FILM.

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Scorsese on Scorsese book needs page number for its source.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 12 for The Films of Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro has no page number(s) for its source.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The mention of the specific sex film that they go see seems trivial and not really related to symbolism. It also kind of lacks context and seems trivial. Other than being interesting, is there a reason for this to be here?

 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Add the link here to the Hollywood Reporter citation. Also, this section doesn't really seem like it belongs in an area called Symbolism as it seems to do more with post-production and editing.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• the "Roberto De Niro's preperation for the role" does not really need its own section as its very short. It would fit better into a pre-production section.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Art of the Title section titled "Dan Perri: A Career Retrospective" states its archived, but there is no URL attached? Again, these sections in production seem to be somewhat randomly organized with no real focus on what happened when. Add the source here: https://www.artofthetitle.com/feature/dan-perri-a-career-retrospective/

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Hollywood Reporter article that starts with Tribecca seems to be this article, i'd suggest linking it an archiving it.

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to stop for now as I feel the production section needs a large overhaul for citations, clarity and formatting. It doesn't really flow currently and surely could be expanded with further information. I'd suggest looking at WP:FILMPRODUCTION and trying to follow the template and suggestions there. I'll give a week to see how the article is doing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Right lets continue.

Generally speaking a lot of information in the production section is split into minor categories but this doesn't seem really useful when they are all only about a paragraph long. I'd suggest either expanding upon them or removing the headings.

• #Production is split into three sections. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just as a heads up, some information has not been addressed above. For example you state that the poster is the source for information in the infobox. However, you have left the production company "Italo/Judeo Productions" which does not seem to be anywhere on the poster. This is why I think you need to actually get sources because this isn't there at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• As for the production section some of the things don't seem like they belong in this section such as the influence on the camera work in the film would probably fit better into the filming section. The section on "religious symbolism" would also probably be better in a themes section. However, on doing this, this leaves the pre-production section pretty blanks. Can information be dug up on how Schrader and Scorsese met up to plan this picture? I feel like this section needs a real work around.

• Pre production also seems pretty empty for such a major film. You have info on how Robert De Niro and the title designer are gathered. And I know there is information even on the blu-ray of Taxi Driver of what an ordeal it was to get Bernard Herrmann involved.

• Filming section also seems relatively small in detail for such a major film. Surely there's more information out there?

Soundtrack

• What makes [4] this source pass WP:RS? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Jackson Browne mention seems trivial and lacks context.
• No information on Scorsese and the use of The Silver Tongued Devil and I in the film?

Controversies

• There is a good chunk of information regarding the casting of Jodie Foster which could go into the pre-production section.
• "Some critics showed concern over 12-year-old Foster's presence during the climactic shoot-out." I don't see anything mentioning this in the source provided.
• The source titled "Jodie Foster details how 'uncomfortable'..." needs its publisher, date, and author. Probably should note that source requires a subscription to view as well.
• The book source should note its publisher.
• the "Scorsese: a journey through the American psyche." needs a page number
• The ""Hinckley Found Not Guilty, Insane"" needs a publisher and a date, author, etc.
• The "Taxi Driver" book by Taubin needs a page number. Also, the use of of "some critics" could use more detail. Who? Names and where this was discussed would help here.
• Source titled ""'Taxi Driver' Oral History: De Niro, Scorsese, Foster, Schrader Spill All on 40th Anniversary"" needs a publisher, author, date, etc.
• The sentence titled "n the special-edition DVD, Michael Chapman" needs a source.

Themes

• Laser disc commentary needs a better more detailed source (which laserdisc? timestamp? etc.)
• Ditto with the DVD commentary. It's probably also not needed to say where these interviews take place (as that's what the source does) but perhaps when they were recorded if such information is possible or when it was released publicly.
• Again, the neo-noir parts need context. Who is calling it this? Why does it fall under these genres?

Reception

• Probably better to have the release date source in this section instead of being sourced in the infobox.
• There is only one contemporary review of Taxi Driver in this section which definitely should be expanded upon.
• I have mixed feelings on adding Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic which combine both contemporary and retrospective reviews as an "overall reception" to older films. This doesn't give readers a clear idea on how the film was interperted. I would go through it and confirm it's either predominantly contemporary or retrospective and make note of that in in the prose.

Accolades

• Several awards are unsourced here. There status needs a source. If possible, it would be great if we can have a date of when these awards were given, but that's not needed for GA.

I'll go through more again soon as the above seems like a lot on anyones plate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• On second thought, @Andrzejbanas, could you fail the article now? When I nominated it in January, I wasn't even a major contributor, and I just don't feel like I should be as I lack knowledge/research of the topic itself. Seeing it months later, I notice that the article already needed a lot of work to even make it to B-level status, let alone GA. So again, feel free to fail the article now as I have withdrawn my nomination. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sorry to hear. Hopefully someone can boost this up to GA eventually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Per the users request and the unifnished sections on production, release, and reception, I will be failing this article at this time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from AlienChex

By Wikipedia standards there should be some genre in there, whether that be thriller, drama, or drama thriller AlienChex (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@AlienChex: Actually, it is not required for a genre to appear in the opening sentence of every film (due to exceptions). Per WP:FILMGENRE, "genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT", which means it should be decisive and accurate. Even your initial comment wasn't able to pick a single genre, and what stops this film was being a psychological thriller, drama, or combination of these genres? Furthermore, multiple film articles also don't have genres (see Fight Club and The Lighthouse) due to consensus that it wouldn't be fair to describe them under simply a few genres per WP:WEIGHT. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You make a fair point, it just makes the opening sentence feel a little empty to leave the genre ambiguous. IMDB lists the film as a crime-drama, would that be sustainable enough to warrant the Wikipedia article to mirror this? AlienChex (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@AlienChex: IMDb is not a reliable source, per WP:IMDB. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taxi Driver (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Cancelled Game

Is someone planning to add a section about the cancelled Taxi Driver game which was also supposed to be a sequel released in 2006?
Wiseguys1990 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)