Jump to content

Talk:The Marvels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.255.217.122 (talk) at 07:17, 23 November 2023 (Undid revision 1186454839 by Jgstokes (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

130 million Budget

Many sources are reporting the $130 million budget, but in April Forbes said that was the budget only for the first two months of filming, not the entire movie: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/04/11/disneys-bill-for-the-marvels-came-to-130-million-two-years-ago/ so who is right? 79.50.113.179 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $130 million is not the full budget, and it was removed from the Vanity Fair piece shortly after publication, instead opting to only state it was budgeted more than A Wrinkle in Time. The exact budget won't be known likely until closer to release, and it has been removed from this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks--79.50.113.179 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now, just to state here, Disney revealed the actual budget clocks in at $274.8 million, which is far more realistic than the figure sites misinterpreted and were throwing around. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that’s not accounting for UK subsidiary, so the real budget is $219.8 million, which a lot of media are beginning to correct themselves to report this figure when taking that into account. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm. That's correct. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added both (gross and net) in the infobox, like in the others MCU movies, for example Guardians of the Galaxy (film)--79.50.113.179 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, both should remain in the article. Disney spent the full $274.8 million, though was essentially reimbursed $55 million. The $274.8 was never incorrect. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now Variety says 250 million dollars for the budget--79.50.113.179 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Variety and other mainstream trades tend to report those figures that are usually rounded to a degree and do not always reflect what the final costs actually are. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we reporting the “net” at all? I would have thought readers are most interested in the production budget, since it helps contextualise the scale of the production effort. The existence of a tax rebate changes nothing about how much money was spent on production, and the terms “gross” and “net” are more than a little ambiguous here. There are many cost and revenue line items that the film’s finances could be gross of or net of. For example, a budget figure might be gross of marketing costs. Why single out this tax rebate? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The net was removed from the infobox, but I don't see any consensus here or in the other pages where the net was removed--79.50.113.179 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for the reasons in my comment above. The infobox is for simple headline facts, not an elaboration of the film’s finances (of which we only see a glimpse in reliable sources). The “gross” production budget is much more useful to the reader because it indicates the scale of the production. Imagine a $100m film was produced in a country with a 99% tax rebate on film spending. It’s still a $100m film, not a $1m film. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't get a 99% tax rebate, because a film would not spend that much in tax. You can only recoup money you have been taxed through a tax rebate or tax credit. For example, the UK's Film Tax Relief scheme allows you claim back VAT provided your expenditure meets certain criteria. If you pay £5 million to a special F/X company, including £1 million in VAT, and the Government rebate that money to your production, you have in fact only been charged £4 million: you have only paid £4 million, and the special F/X company has only received £4 million. All of this is incidental though: if different sources are reporting different figures we should include both of them, and clear about what they represent. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UK Film Tax Relief is on corporation tax, not VAT, and qualifying expenditure includes items like actors salaries which would not attract VAT. The expenditure on which tax relief is claimed is real money coming out of the wallet of the film production company and going into the wallets of the various suppliers. The tax relief is applied as a deduction against profit when calculating corporation tax, thus the film production company gets to keep more of the profit and thus are incentivised to produce films in the UK (which is presumably the purpose of the scheme). In Disney's case, they spent $274.8m to make this film. That's the actual budget of the film. The tax relief didn't reduce the budget, it just made the production company more profitable.
So this isn't a case of different sources reporting two different figures for the budget. One figure ($274.8m) is the actual budget, the other figure ($219.8) is a bit of armchair-accountancy to inform some rough reckoning of whether the film will be commercial success. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how it is applied, it is applied and sources regularly deduct tax credits/rebates when presenting the cost of production. It is a matter of perspective as to whether a credit or a rebate should be counted as income against the film or deducted from the overall cost, and perspective is for reliable sources to determine, not us as editors. It would become very difficult (and inconsistent) for Wikipedia to report film finance if we limited ourselves to one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the reliable source we are using is completely clear that $274.8m is the actual budget. Where are the reliable sources claiming anything else as the actual budget? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Variety says that the budget is 220 million--79.50.113.179 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't mention tax relief or gross or net or anything like that. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At no point does the article use the term "actual budget". It states "This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million" which is line with Variety's figure. There is no valid reason to choose one figure over the other. The source provides both figures, and the net figure is reported in other sources. Net budgets are widely reported metrics in the trade press. If it's good enough for Variety I don't see any reason to preclude it here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't call either $274.8m or $219.8 "the budget" or "the gross budget" or "the net budget". It describes those two different figures as spending - it spent $274.8 million & This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million - so we can't report these figures strictly verbatim as "the budget". We have to do a bit of thinking about what they mean and what information we are trying to discern. In our infobox template, we're after a specific thing: the production budget. That means how much money they paid to make the film. The source gives us two figures: spending, and net spending. Which one of those is the production budget? It's the first, because that's how much they paid to make the film. They paid the full $274.8m. The tax rebate came later.
Going back to my first comment on this matter, we do have a valid reason to prefer "spending" instead of "net spending": because the purpose of including the budget at all is to give the reader a sense of the scale of the production - not to give an account of the production company's financing and profitability. Why not? Because we can not achieve that purpose using only this tiny slice of information. Film financing and profitability is extremely complex, and the fact that we know about a tax rebate tells us nothing about the many other factors that go into determining a film's profitability - and to show "gross" and "net" as we currently do is highly likely to mislead the reader, because we haven't grossed up or netted down any of those other factors. It's false precision. Never mind that it's extra clutter in the infobox, which is supposed to be for concise summarised information, not trivial details.
I could understand reporting a "net" figure if that's all sources provide, but I can see no upside to including "net" when "gross" is readily available.
The Variety source is problematic for three reasons: 1) a later articles contradicts it ($250m); 2) it doesn't explain where its figure comes from; 3) it doesn't describe their $220m figure as net, so it's an assumption by Wikipedia editors that this is a net value, presumably because we suspect Variety got it from Forbes. Taken all together, this is probably best explained by Variety just being sloppy. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to explain where they get their figures from. Trade press usually obtain their figures either through an examination of audited figures if available, or via a contact connected to the production. As for not describing the figure as a "net budget" this is splitting hairs now. The expenditure on production costs is the production budget i.e. what the film cost to make. In the context of John Carter this exact same figure is described as the "net budget". This figure is further corroborated by Variety as the "cost". Fine, you have a different perspective, but it does not usurp those found in reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of including a net budget when a gross budget is available? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we include the gross budget when the net budget is available. Inclusion in Wikipedia is based on proportionate coverage by reliable sources, and both metrics are commonly reported. If you want an underlying rationale for why some sources favor one metric over the other then you'd need to put the question to them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the John Carter source and it very clearly distinguishes gross from net and reports them as two different metrics. We’re not obliged to report two metrics here. The template (assuming, for the moment, that the template reflects consensus) just asks for the production budget. Why don’t we report the metric that corresponds most closely to what the template asks for? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it. Cherry-picking goes against Template:Infobox film. It is not for editors to decide which figure is "more useful" or more correct. The net figure is commonly reported by reliable sources because this is actually closest to the final expenditure on the film's production. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for outdated budget

I feel it is important to note that while the original budget when the film was scheduled for a July 2022 release was $274.8 gross, with $219.8m after UK tax write-offs, the entire film has been reshot twice and that's not factoring in the additional costs of insuring the film throughout the delays.

As such it's completely infeasible for the $219.8m net budget to be its actual budget as of 2023. 2A00:23C7:80B:7901:CEB:2C27:4638:AE2B (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Forbes' report on the budget is more accurate than Variety's, which is an estimate. We do not know the extent of the reshoots, so we cannot assume their impact on the production. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101: the $220 million budget was confirmed also by Variety: https://variety.com/2023/film/news/the-marvels-box-office-opening-weekend-projections-worst-mcu-debut-1235783293/ with another $100 million for the promotion--79.50.113.179 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The $220 million appears to be an estimate of the $219.8 million net budget Forbes reported rather than a new figure being reported, with Forbes' report being more accurate and reputable, especially when Variety itself also said it was $250 million. Marketing costs are not always factored into the overall budget of films, so we would not add 100 to any of the budgets. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

plot summary until detailed

it's missing stuff. 2600:1004:B30B:D052:B4EA:597:5122:36C0 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because very few people other than critics have seen it yet. ZooBlazer 02:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the section. I'm mulling over whether I should put in the memory flashback of Maria, since it would provide context for the mid-credits scene. jhsounds (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the section falls between 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT and follows the other parameters there, such an addition could work if deemed beneficial to a readers' basic understanding of the plot, though it may just be a character beat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Bomb

The movie is tracking toward a worse box office than "The Flash". Would that make it a "Bomb" or some other underwhelming verb use? What should be used to characterize this abject failure? -- Sleyece (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources calling it that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't handle the truth??
107.19.11.186 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We ain't believing it Box-office Bomb yet. It's still Potential but we check analyst sometimes. Happiness is Simple (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why downplay the fact that the film did poorly and subsequently give protection of the article? It seems like people here just can't handle the truth. 107.19.11.186 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the world's not going to end tomorrow. We can wait a month or two for the reliable sources to start talking about it. What people seem to forget is that Wikipedia is a summary of already published materials and should be slow in including current events. DonQuixote (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair, the Little Mermaid remake was a box office failure as cited by Forbes etc because it didn't recuperate its marketing costs, and that was released almost half a year ago, but the page is still protected and no one can put box office failure. Is Disney controlling wikipedia or something? Because other non-Disney films like Flash and Blue Beetle were immediately labelled as flops. 2A02:C7C:84A2:CC00:B922:A1DA:508B:C4E6 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that Disney is controlling wiki. It's that Disney is being protected by libtards and the majority of admin on this site are left leaning so I'm sure you can figure out why this article is being protected lol 2603:8081:9100:F00:5DB9:A1FF:F274:9D1A (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just it. They can't handle the truth. Other films have been labelled as box office bombs far sooner than this, yet the Little Mermaid remake which is now on home media still doesn't say box office bomb even though it didn't recover its marketing costs. Disney is playing a role here, partly silencing wikipedia. Its plain and obvious. 2A02:C7C:84A2:CC00:B922:A1DA:508B:C4E6 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Honestly, in those other cases, labelling them as such probably jumped the gun. Stranger things have happened with a film's box office, and we are in WP:NORUSH when it still likely has a few more months of theatrical play before it's all said and done. The article notes it has the potential to become a bomb, that's the best we can do right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are there enough critic reviews?

I feel like more critic reviews should be featured in the Critical Response section, such as the positive reviews from IO9 and The Hollywood Reporter and the negative ones from The New York Post and The Telegraph. At the moment it feels a bit empty. if there's a reason it hasn't been done already, that's fine. 2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 sorry just realised the Hollywood Reporter's one is already there. the others are not though 2A02:C7C:A4B6:1A00:5422:2760:981E:CB69 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Box office discrepancy between sources.

The Article lists two sources for the opening weekend total. But one source puts the international total at $63.3 million, while the other source puts it at $41.5 million. That's a little too large a number to just be a rounding error. Can someone explain what gives? MLcausey (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary - Supreme Intelligence

I've noticed that the plot summary has a note explaining that the fall of the Supreme Intelligence was "depicted in Captain Marvel (2019)". However, the destruction of that entity is only depicted via flashback in The Marvels itself. That flashback follows up on Danvers' intention to stop the Supreme Intelligence in Captain Marvel, even if we don't see her destroy it in the 2019 film. I reworded the opening sentence of the plot summary to clarify this, but it may be better leave the note out to avoid further confusion. jhsounds (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Marvels&oldid=1186455480"