Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Could a post-release source be found for Hayley Atwell's cameo?

I'm not entirely sure why 30-second cameos are listed in the "Cast" section, but the Daily Mail source currently cited is clearly problematic. It mentions Ultron twice:

Hayley will be making an appearance in Avengers: Age of Ultron before starring in her own Marvel spin-off series

and

but it looks like the Hydra-bashing spy will be making an appearance in The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, as Evan tweeted about her onset last week

The former is clearly problematic in that it's wrong (the Agent Carter spin-off premiered before AoU, as Wikipedia could have told them a matter of hours later), and the latter is inaccurate speculation based on a Tweet (the actress was in the film, but not the "Hydra-bashing spy" -- she was technically a figment of Cap's imagination).

I'm also dubious about the mention of Idris Elba. Both of these are sourced to dubious, early speculation that these characters might have important roles to play in a film about which the authors of those sources knew almost nothing, and the "retrieved" dates indicate Wikipedia was merely parroting their speculations. The film itself later confirmed these sources to be all-but wrong.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The Cast section matches those listed in the Starring portion of the infobox which, in turn, matches the billing block of the film. At the very least, this is consistent with all of the MCU films. - DinoSlider (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The billing block of the film is not the source cited. If all we are saying is that Atwell and Elba are in the film, then surely the end credits of the film itself would be a sufficient source (I haven't checked, but I'd imagine they are both listed) would be a better source than an out-of-date one that includes inaccurate information in the very same sentence being cited? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was simply trying to answer your initial statement, "I'm not entirely sure why 30-second cameos are listed in the "Cast" section" - DinoSlider (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How is any of this relevant? The section makes no mention of Agent Carter nor does it refer to her as a "Hydra-bashing spy" (which is obviously a reference to her role in CA:TFA). We are just verifying that Atwell appears in the film. The source could go on to say that the earth is flat but it wouldn't matter since we are not discussing Flat Earth Theory. Also as DinoSlider stated her placement in the cast is based on the billing block per Template:Infobox film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The source cited is out of date and blatantly inaccurate to anyone who would read it today. I did not say the text of the article should be altered, nor did I in anyway imply that our article currently mirrors the errors of the external, out-of-date source. I merely said we should be citing a better source inline. If we are "just verifying that Atwell appears in the film", then surely the film itself (which includes a cast-list) would be adequate -- we don't need to be citing inaccurate speculation from a year before the film was released and just removing all the inaccurate parts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again we are not citing inaccurate speculation, only what we have written in the article. Whatever else is in the source is of no concern to us.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Correction, the same source is used again to verify material in the filming section as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing problematic with the current source. States Atwell is in the film, and the part the was in-the scenes filmed at Rivioli Ballroom, which happened to be Cap's dream sequence. Don't know the issue Hijiri has. This source is not speculating "that these characters might have important roles to play in the film". It just states Atwell is in the film. And we take the order from the billing block, which is why she and Elba are bulleted cast members. We have no control over that; that order is determined by the producers and deal makers for the actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: We are citing inaccurate speculation -- we are just removing the inaccurate speculation from what we write, thus misrepresenting what is in the source. The source's main point in one of the two sentences possibly being cited is that Atwell would appear in this film before starring in a spin-off TV show (something that is obviously wrong; Agent Carter shouldn't even really be called a "spin-off" of this film -- it's a spin-off of CA:TFA, if anything), and the other one is obviously problematic because it doesn't confirm she is in the film -- it states that it looks like [she will be in the film] as Evan tweeted about her onset last week, which is not confirmation and makes the source useless for WP:V purposes.

@Favre1fan93: It doesn't state she is in the film; it states that it looks like she might be in the film based on someone having seen her on-set. This might have been an acceptable compromise before the film came out and hundreds of acceptable sources -- including the film itself -- that confirmed the simple fact that she is in the film were made available to us, but it isn't necessary now.

It's a shame this has blown up into the mess that it has. I probably should have just replaced the source with a better one and not said a word, and I doubt anyone would have had a problem. But now it would seem that any attempt to do so will be taken as an attempt to undermine this "discussion".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, our only requirement is that the information in the article is verifiable. If it's not in the article, then it doesn't matter. What ever the author wrote about Agent Carter is of no consequence since that information is not being used in the article. Furthermore, the source states more then she was just on set, it quotes Evans, who tweeted that he was watching her film the movie.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Triiiple in their above explanation. You are looking way to much into the phrasing regarding Agent Carter, which has not bearing on this article. All we care about in the article is her boyfriend tweeted that Atwell was filming on set at the Rivioli Ballroom. Anything else in the source is insignificant. Additionally, should the source have turned out to be false with Carter not in the film (as was with Elba's source saying Hiddelston was in the film), a new source would have been added clarify (such as was done with Hiddelston). But because she appeared, there is no need to change or update. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, our only requirement is that the information in the article is verifiable And for the third time, the source currently cited inline doesn't verify the material in the article. If the only requirement is that it be verifiable, then we might as well just remove the source, because anyone who can see this article can go out and find a source that verifies it quite easily. The problem is that our article currently states that "Hayley Atwell appears in the film as Peggy Carter", but the source cited inline says something more like "in early 2014 Hayley Atwell was seen on the set of the film and it was reported that she would likely be appearin in the film as Peggy Carter". These two are not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps when you read the references. The inline source you are referring to quotes a tweet made by Evans (a reliable source) stating that he watched Atwell filming a scene for the film, followed by information on a 40s-set flashback sequence. So the source does include the information that we are citing, namely that Atwell appears as Carter in the film. If she ultimately did not appear in the film, then we would need to get a new source stating that and hopefully why, as we did with Hiddleston, but that is obviously not the case, so there is no need to worry. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This despite the fact that:

(1) the tweet it does mention is attributed to "Evan", not "Evans"; we can only assume this refers to Evan Jones, Atwell's boyfriend who is mentioned throughout the article -- he is completely irrelevant to this article, and I'm not sure what he was doing onset, but he clearly isn't a "reliable source" as you claim;

(2) if you want to assume that "Evan" was a misprint and the person being referred to is "Chris Evans", you need a reliable source to back you up;

(3) anyone who has seen the film (which obviously couldn't include the author of the source, nor Mr. Jones) could tell you that the sequence in question is not a "flashback".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll have a hard time proving that "Evan" is a misprint, as it explicitly calls him "the Keep Up band member". How on earth could this be considered a "reliable source"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to comment on the general usability of celeb gossip mags as sources, but I will say that I have trouble closely reading sources with the photo/word ratio this one has (hence my initially missing that the tweet was quoted). I am sure the rest of you have far more experience citing these kind of sources than I do. And I'm sure I have more experience citing scholarly articles on ancient literature than do any of you. It's all pretty irrelevant to the question at hand. I frankly don't want to spend any more of my time closely/critically reading these kind of sources than is necessary, and am not pleased that I was forced to in this case. And sarcastically attacking me for "not reading the source" (or perhaps not being able to read the source?) while at the same time making a laughable misreading of the same source oneself is an unacceptable level of hypocrisy: I want an apology, adamstom97. 182.249.215.174 (talk) (User:Hijiri88) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are making quite a few arrogant assumptions here, and your tone is completely unnecessary. I was not being sarcastic when I "attacked" you, I was merely pointing out that when you were describing what the source said, you didn't represent it very accurately, making it seem as if you had just skim read it and interpreted it how you wanted. Of course I was doing all this while incorrectly believing that it had been Evans tweeting, and so for that I am sorry. However, there is no reason to be a dick about this. The combination of one first name being almost identical to the other's surname and the fact that we're obviously used to sources using surnames, not first names, makes this a very simple mistake to make, in my opinion. In fact, I am assuming that this mistake was made when this source was first added here, because as far as I can tell, Jones is not a reliable twitter source. So, unless I am missing something, I agree that we need a new source for this information. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the source. It still shows that (A) Hayley Atwell is in the movie, (B) it was filmed at the Rivoli Ballroom, and (C) it was shot in April 2014. I forgot that I denied an edit request at the time because the person making the request wanted to source it directly to Jones' tweet. If the DailyMail is basing their information on Jones' tweet then it falls under WP:FRUIT. Still WP:V, only requires that information in Wikipedia comes from a reliable source. The policy has no bearing on information not being used in the article. Also keep in mind that our standard is WP:Verifiability, not truth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive changes to the budget

An editor is repeatedly making alterations to the budget, effectively adding the tax rebate of $50 million back on to the budget. The editor in questions misunderstands what a rebate is: a rebate is not a subsidy, it is tax payment that is returned to the company. As such it is effectively money that is not spent on the film. So when Disney spends $330 million making the film and claims back a tax rebate of $50 million the net budget is $280 million. It is like buying a train ticket for $20 and getting $5 back: the ticket only costs you $15. This article explains the British tax rebate system well in the context of John Carter: "Total costs came to $306.6 million (£192.6 million) and peaked annually at $130.6 million (£85 million) in 2010 when 435 staff worked on the production ... The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted. " I hope this clarifies the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an understanding of what the word "budget" means in a film's page. I spend $100 million making a movie, the cost (or budget) for me is $100 million. If the government decides to subsidize me after the fact, say by giving $20 million as a film rebate, my out of pocket to make the film is now $80 million, but it still COST $100 million to produce. For example, if I get $2 million back from the government as a 20% rebate on $10 million I paid my actor, I may be out of pocket for only $8 million...but he still got $10 million. In short, the budget is the the gross (actual) cost rather than the net to the producer.

Yes, for the budget/cost of the movie, you do add the rebate back in, as the rebate is used to finance the budget. Again the cost still represents what was SPENT. Depauldem (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A rebate is a not a subsidy! A subsidy is when an organization contributes money towards your film i.e the money is spent on the film's production. A tax rebate is when you pay tax and some of that money is returned to you down the line i.e. that money is ultimately not spent on the production of the film because it was given back to you. You pay your tax, HMRC audits your accounts and the they give a certain percentage back. It is a bureaucratic process where you are temporarily separated from your money while somebody does some paperwork. Betty Logan (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming this is a rebate of taxes. It's not. It is rebate of production spending. This is from the British Film Commission: "For films of all budget levels, the Film Production Company (FPC) can claim a payable cash rebate of up to 25% of UK qualifying film production expenditure." Hence, if I spend $1 million, I will get a cash rebate of $200k regardless of whether I pay or owe taxes. Many people consider a cash payment that covers a portion of the budget to be a text book example of a subsidy. The Tax Foundation provides further explanation: "tax credits are refundable, meaning that if the credit exceeds the liability the state pays companies the difference between the amount of their credit and their tax liability." Finally, if you look at the actual filings for the various productions at the Companies House site you will see that the productions do not have enough tax liability and, hence, the credits are refunded for full cash value. The filings for Thor 2 show there is literally no tax charge and all of the amounts are in parenthesis, meaning they got cash from the UK and didn't owe or pay a thing.

It is a rebate of taxes. It is called the "UK Film Tax Relief" fund. We don't care what "many people would call it", we care about what it is. The payments are made by HMRC which is a tax body. It is called "tax relief" and not a "subsidy" for good reason. Per Stephen Follows: In order to receive tax relief, a film needs to apply via a single UK limited company (known in taxland as the Film Production Company, or FPC), and the money is paid out as part of their annual Corporation Tax returns. This method was designed in order to benefit the film’s producers, unlike previous tax schemes which were written in such as a way that the benefit tended to go straight to the investors. So you see, I am not assuming anything, but rather you are misunderstanding the nature of the scheme. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement with Betty's explanation of this situation and how to analysis the info being a rebate, not a subsidy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Favre, I have a question: If I pay you $1 million to be in my movie and the government covers me with a payment of $200k (under a 20% incentive) so that of the $1 million spent to pay you, I covered $800k of it and the government covered $200k...is that not a subsidy? If it's not a subsisdy, what is it? If that's not an example of a subsidy, then what is? Depauldem (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding what Mr. Follows post means. I actually know Stephen and would be happy to try and get him to clarify it for you, but I think the British Film Commission's direct quote above is clear when it states it is a cash rebate up to 25% of the "production expenditure", and not a rebate on taxes. But if that isn't clear enough, here is an actual example from HMRC about what happens when the amount credits exceeds any taxes owed that the company will "make a profit, post tax of 800k because the credit is, factually, a rebate of the production spending. Depauldem (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you are misunderstanding what HMRC actually does. It is a tax body. It does not hand out subsidies. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What Betty is, and has been, saying. Per you're query to me. You're paying $1 million for the film, and are filming in the UK (with the knowledge of the FTR). The UK government, after collecting your tax documents through the HMRC, rebate you $200k under the FTR. Thus, you're net budget for the film was $800k. No one is giving you a subsidy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please just answer my question: If I give you $1 million, but had the government cover $200K of that cost and I only contributed $800K, is that a subsidy or not? And if it's not, then what is? Depauldem (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)]

The definition of subsidy really makes the above sound like a subsidy

Except that is not analagous to what is going on. If you spend £1 million in the UK making a film and HMRC collects tax from that expenditure and then rebates you £200k how much has it cost you? HMRC is not putting its hand in its own pocket here, it is rebating you your own money. The whole point of a tax rebate scheme is that it raises more revenue than it gives back, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Betty, if I pay you $1 million and the government gives me $200k, who is paying for the rebate? Where does that $200K that I spent paying you the $1 million come from? Unless you yourself are giving the government that $200k out of your $1 million paycheck, HMRC quite literally does reach into its own pocket to pay me via the rebate. The example I linked to plainly lays this out: you have 800k more in credits than you actually owe, they give you cash for the full value. And no, the point of the film tax credit program is not to generate income for the treasury. It's to encourage the growth of the local film industry by lowering costs (and the government lowering costs by covering a portion of the expenses is not a subsidy according to you). If you have a source that supports your claim that the point of the film tax relief is raise more revenue than it costs, please provide it. Depauldem (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that your argument keeps shifting. This is what you state above: "You are assuming this is a rebate of taxes. It's not. It is rebate of production spending." Your initial argument was that it was a cash rebate, not a tax rebate. You even quote the British Film Commission as stating "For films of all budget levels, the Film Production Company (FPC) can claim a payable cash rebate of up to 25% of UK qualifying film production expenditure." The problem though is that in dismissing the FTR as a tax rebate, you missed out the salient part: "the FPC can claim a payable cash rebate of up to 25% on the first £20m of qualifying UK expenditure, with the remaining qualifying UK expenditure receiving a 20% tax rebate." On top of that you are also saying that revenue HMRC collects from the expenditure and returns to the producer should be counted as a cost against the film. It sounds like some whacky Hollywood Accounting scheme. Ultimately there is only a cost to HMRC if you don't take account of the revenue they collect from the expenditure in the first place. The net cost to the producer is what they spend less the rebate. If a studio spends $100 million in the UK, and HMRC end up with $30 million of that through taxation and they rebate $20 million to the studio then the overall net cost is $80 million. HMRC's scheme is financed entirely out of the revenue it raises from these films being made in the UK in the first place. That is entirely different to a subsidy where an organization awards cash that does not initially come from the investors. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Betty, I provided you links to an example from the HMRC that shows, conclusively, that even when the amount of tax credits exceeds the actual tax liability owed, the production STILL gets a cash payment for those credits. You can continue to disagree, but without a single citation to anything that refutes that example, your argument is lacking in merit. So let's get back to the issue at hand, the budget on this page should represent the GROSS budget, which is the actual amount spent (cost) to make the film. If I had to spend $100 million to get the $20 million rebate, the people I paid $100 million to still got $100 million and made the movie, correct? At the end of the day, the $20 million rebate may mean my NET budget only put me out of pocket $80 million, but $100 million was still spent to make the film, correct? If you disagree, would you oppose listing the Gross budget first, to reflect the amount spent and then the Net budget, to reflect the amount the studio is out of pocket minus the rebate? Depauldem (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that Wikipedia's own page on "Subsidy" includes the following:

"Tax subsidy: Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[6]

Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. This requires the assumption that a person's or an entity's money belongs to the government. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[7]"

Thus, even by your own description of the film program meets the definition of a subsidy on wikipedia. If you still disagree, perhaps you should take your case there. Depauldem (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The budget on this page should represent the GROSS budget, which is the actual amount spent (cost) to make the film. If I had to spend $100 million to get the $20 million rebate, the people I paid $100 million to still got $100 million and made the movie, correct? At the end of the day, the $20 million rebate may mean my NET budget only put me out of pocket $80 million, but $100 million was still spent to make the film, correct? Unless the other editor is going to reject the simple concept that the budget of each film is representative of the gross budget, i.e. the amount spent to make the actual project, I am going to edit the budget to reflect the amount spent. The note will still reflect that the cost was later offset by a government rebate. But the rebate was only able to be receives AFTER the had to spend the full budget to make the film. User:Fru1tbat would you like to weigh in on this? Depauldem (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I could add anything useful, honestly. I'm not an expert on the subject. On one hand, it costs what it costs to produce a film (materials, labor, equipment, etc.), and any government rebate because of some tax code or other specific incentivized relief shouldn't really be figured into that, even though it affects the company's overall net gain/loss. On the other hand, if the purpose of the rebate is to refund an over-expenditure, that could be considered slightly different. I'd probably lean toward the former interpretation, but like I said, I'm not an expert. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert, because, as you noted, its common sense. It costs what it costs. That's two to one on altering the budget to reflect amount spent to produce. Depauldem (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's not, it's two to two, since Favre1fan93 supports my interpretation. Currently there is WP:NOCONSENSUS to change the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone's already aware of this, but it might be worth repeating here that WP:Consensus does not mean "majority" and is not the result of counting votes. Just for the record. Having said that, I like Betty's compromise below, especially as it seems to be the only one available at the moment. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Section break

It is pretty obvious that Depauldem is not going to address the specifics of the actual scheme, preferring to conceive simplified examples that are not analagous. I am just going to lay out the specifics of the scheme so that impartial contributors can understand roughly how exactly it works, rather than have their understanding colored by make-believe analogies.

1. The Film Tax Relief fund permits production companies to reclaim up to 25% of the UK expenditure. This works partly as a cash payment, but also as a tax rebate. There is a brief description of the scheme at the British Film Commissions.
2. According to the British Film Commissions the production company can reclaim 25% of the first £20 million of qualifying UK expenditure as a cash rebate. So basically the UK government will bung you £5 million to make Star Wars there.
3. You can claim back 20% of the rest of your qualifying UK expenditure as a tax rebate. This isn't my interpretation, this is the exact wording taken from the British Film Commission.
4. The credit is then paid to the company, which it can use to offset its tax liabilities. These may include things like Corporation tax, PAYE liabilities, national insurance, and presumably other tax liabilities that the production company incurs through the making of the film. This is explained by the HMRC's section on claiming film tax credit
5. The British Film Commission makes a clear distinction between the initial cash payment (no more than £5 million or ~$7 million) and the subsequent tax credit, which came to a total of $50 million for The Avengers (less the $7 million cas payment). If it were all a single cash bursary then the British Film Commission would not use different terms to describe it!

So, the question then becomes if the production company uses its tax credits to offset its tax liabilities do those count as costs, or do they simply count as something that can be deducted when tallying the budget? The convention seems to be to deduct tax credits from the budget, as these examples demonstrate:

• John Carter: The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted.
• The Revenant: The final bill, once tax credits are counted, is estimated to be $135 million, multiple individuals told TheWrap.
• The Dark Knight Rises: Financed and released by Warner Bros., with 25% of the budget covered by Legendary Pictures, "The Dark Knight Rises" cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce. However tax credits brought that total closer to $230 million, said people familiar with the movie's economics but not authorized to discuss them publicly.
• Superman Returns: According to the studio, Superman Returns' price tag is $204 million. Without the Australian tax credits: about $223 million [1]. Quote by Bryan Singer: "My production budget on "Superman Returns" was $204 million" [2].
• Fast & Furious 6: The latest in the series cost close to $200 million, according to a person close to the production. With the benefit of tax credits in the United Kingdom, where much of the movie was shot, the final budget was $160 million, said a Universal spokeswoman.
• Godzilla: “Godzilla,” powered in part by strong Imax and 3-D screenings, cost a reported $195 million to make, with tax credits bringing the net cost closer to $160 million.

Judging by those reports, the convention seems to be that tax credits are deducted to give a final "cost/budget". This makes sense to me since the the budget is principally the amount of cash that the production company has at stake in the film. If they offset $20 million or whatever through tax credits then obviously that is money they do have staked in the film. Anyway, I don't think it is a good idea for two editors to monopolise a discussion so I would rather see what other editors say and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this, as I didn't notice you added the new section. Betty, look at the actual financials. When you get to the current tax charge for the year, you will see it's "(5,652,027)" for 2015; the parenthesis means they don't owe anything and their tax amount is negative and they get a refund. That means not only did not owe any tax, they got that amount back as a refund under the rebate program. Once again, it's a rebate of how much they spent, not on the taxes they paid. Review the all the records and you will see that have never had to pay a net tax and have always gotten refunds back.

Again, this HMRC example shows, without a doubt, that the production still gets a cash payment even if they don't have anymore taxes to pay. I have already emailed the British Film Commission to get them to clarify the issue for you. Until then, there is also the KPMG guide to film financing from 2015, which also states, several times, that the incentive is a "cash tax credit": "For lower (limited) budget films (less than GBP 20m), a cash tax credit of 25 percent of the losses surrendered is available. This is reduced to 20 percent for films with a budget in excess of GBP 20m. It should be noted however that given it is only possible to surrender a loss up to a maximum of the qualifying expenditure for the period (i.e., U.K. expenditure up to a maximum of 80 percent of core expenditure). As a result, the maximum cash credit available for films which are made wholly in the U.K. will be 20 percent (25 percent x 80 percent) of core expenditure for lower budget films and 16 percent (20 percent x 80 percent). The benefit will be eroded even further the more expenditure incurred on non-U.K. goods and services."

Finally, irrespective of all of this, will you please answer the question: If $100 million is spent to make a film, then isn't the cost $100 million? Sure, I may get a $20 million rebate from the government, but that doesn't magically mean that all the people I paid $100 million to to make the movie now only have $80 million...does it? Because that is what you are implying. Budget should represent GROSS budget to make the film. Depauldem (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion @Depauldem: It has become apparent that neither one of us are going to relinquish our positions, so there are basically two options available to us to resolve this. The first would be to formally file an RFC which is a protracted community discussion. It would take several weeks to get a result, and the outcome is usually a lottery anyway because you get random people responding i.e. basically each editor has a 50/50 chance of winning. There is however a compromise available which I found here: [3]. That would give both perspectives i.e. the amount the production company has staked in the film, and the overall "value" of the production. I think we are basically on the same side here: we both recognize the importance of the HMRC figures, and the disagreement is basically a presentation issue. If we get around that then I think our efforts would be more productive if they are combined. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. It is essentially just moving the note info that is at the bottom of the page all together in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. I love this idea, and I think its even better than my prior suggestion of putting the gross budget and the net budget. Betty, I will let you do the honors, if you wish.  :) Depauldem (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I've been beaten to it! Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to take exception to two of the arguments here. In response to my comment at the talk page for the new Star Wars movie, in which I mention that budgets submitted for official purposes may use "creative accountng", Depauldem says "creative accounting" is used only for film profits, not production. I am flabbergasted that he doesn't realize that the higher the film's ostensible production budget, then the lower the profits — thus lower taxes, thus lower profit participation to actors. etc.

I would suggest he read Art Buchwald's book Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald V. Paramount or Steven Bach's Final Cut: Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate. It is very common, for example, to attribute amortization / depreciation costs on studio property to high-grossing movies, whether or not those particular parts of studio property were used for that particular film. Just off the top of my head that's one way studios purposefully inflate budgets for tax and profit-participation purposes.

The second point — which I had thought was inherent in my statement about how primary sources can be misread by laymen and so we rely on analysis / reportage by authoritative journalists / academics — is: If the budget source Depauldem is relying on is so readily available and so inherently, perfectly, inarguably accurate, then why aren't sources like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc. quoting its figures? Possibly because these trade magazines realize the truth of the previous paragraph, and analyze accordingly. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

First, this talk page has not mentioned creative accounting and it is not the subject of discussion here. I replied to your identical comments in The Force Awakens talk page concerning creative accounting. Second, both the Hollywood Reporter and Variety have cited these filings (see the links on The Force Awakens talk page). This is addition to the Politico post, Forbes, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and others. Depauldem (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, please see the discussion at The Force Awakens talk page, since it remains ongoing and there is no consensus whatsoever for the record-breaking figures and analysis you claim.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, Depauldem's infobox phrasing is needlessly confounding and in no way keeping with guidelines that infoboxes contain basic rather than overly detailed information. "$300.3 million ($254.4 million after UK tax credits)." So: $254.4 out of pocket. So: $250 million per Box Office Mojo. What exactly is your point? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that the info box budget is not needlessly confounding. In any event, I was fine with listing the rebate amount in the footnote, but the consensus above favored the compromise that you are overlooking. If you want to keep the BoxOfficeMojo amount, then include it as part of the range. Does that work for you? Depauldem (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say the difference between $250 and $254 million is a matter of rounding and estimation, so I see no material difference and prefer the rounded approximation $250 million. Second, Stephen Follows doesn't claim his figures are exact or comprehensive. He says, "It’s worth noting that this an imperfect method for finding the exact figures, as from the outside we can’t know if they had other reasons to claim back tax or if money was spent on the film outside of these SPVs."

But even assuming his figure is correct and assuming your conversation rate is correct, there's no significant difference between $250 and $254 million for purposes of the infobox. So for the admirable sake of consistency and apples-to-apples comparison, I would go with the $250 million we've had all along. Are we going to quibble over $4 million that, depending on the exchange rate on a given day, may or may not exist? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And may I, sincerely and legitimately, thank you for discussing rather than continuing to edit-war. I was about to leave a message on your talk page, and I see numerous edit-war warnings and that you were blocked on April 1. So I find this discussion, which has been very civil, encouraging. The message I was about to leave is that I have to be away from the computer for a little while, and so if I don't respond, please be patient and we'll continue this collegial discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As for Follows point about money being spent of the outside SPV (i.e. the production company), that means that the spending in the UK is, if anything, the minimum spent on the film as money spent on pre-production before the production company was even set up, or money spent by the project in another location...like the millions the spent in UAE. On another note, the recent Politico post does also confirm the tax credit amount of a 31.9 million GBP rebate for Age of Ultron, which matches the Forbes article you want to dismiss, Stephen Follows site, and, lest we forget, the actual audited financials from the production itself. Depauldem (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you did not address this point, I'll ask again: Even assuming Follows' figure is correct and assuming your conversation rate is correct, there's no significant difference between $250 and $254 million for purposes of the infobox. So for the admirable sake of consistency and apples-to-apples comparison, I would go with the $250 million we've had all along. Are we going to quibble over $4 million that, depending on the exchange rate on a given day, may or may not exist? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The $254 million numbers is only the net cost to the studio, after the rebate. The actual cost to produce was $300.6 million. Depauldem (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, tax rebates are figured into the budget, and if the tax rebate were not offered, the production could have gone elsewhere; there are numerous studios besides Pinewood capable of handling a production of that size. The out-of-pocket cost, which is the only viable, real-world figure, is the $250-$254 million. If we're going to have apples-to-apples comparisons, then we either do research on the tax rebate status of every budget we give in Wikipedia movie infoboxes, or we don't. But saying the cost was $300.6 when the company spent $50 million less is completely misleading. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The filings clearly show how much was LITERALLY spent. They ONLY get the rebate after spending that amount. Hence, to make the film, they DID spend $300.6 million. Just like if you pay $10 for a shirt and later get a $5 rebate, you still SPENT $10 for the shirt and the retailer still got your $10. Depauldem (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you didn't spend $10 for the shirt. You spent $5. Whether you get the sale price before or a rebate after the purchase doesn't change the fact that your out-of-pocket expense was $5. Any studio figures the cost of the rebate into the budget — Disney knew going in what the production would cost it, and it wasn't (metaphorically speaking) $10. It was $5. To say the movie cost Disney $10 is completely misleading. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's put it another way: If I pay a man $100 to do some landscaping, and the government later gives me a $50 tax credit for home improvement, what did I spend? Only $50. What did the landscaper receive? $100. What did it cost me to have the landscaping done? $50. What did it cost to do the landscaping? $100.

So what's the cost we care about here? If we use the gross cost, we can somewhat more closely compare the production costs of films made in different situations and locations (i.e. attempt to answer the question "Which was the biggest most expensive film?"), whereas if we use the net cost, it seems we're somewhat more interested in documenting what a company's business expense was. I may be misrepresenting something, but that's how I see it.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fru1tbat: We shouldn't adopt at position that is at odds with the industry norms for documenting budgets, otherwise our figures will be different to everybody else's. It is largely down to industry convention what counts as production cost. For example, profit participation isn't usually counted as part of the budget even though it's a cost. Interest payments are not usually counted. Tax credits are usually deducted by the media because they assume readers are more interested in the film's financial exposure. The bottom line is that if reliable sources deduct the tax credit in their budget reports we should arguably do the same; if they don't then we shouldn't either. As you can see from my list of examples above they generally either report both figures or deduct the tax credit and report that figure. This is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources as opposed to primary sources, because we are not just interested in facts but rather the interpretation of those facts. I suggested a compromise below (i.e. reporting both figures) because giving readers more information than they need is generally a lesser evil than withholding information that they need, and I stand by the compromise as the best way of resolving this dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise - I made a statement to that effect earlier, before the debate seemed to renew with added vigor. Point taken on not deviating from the industry convention, though I still think an argument could be made that if secondary sources exist which report both numbers, we have the freedom to choose the number that's most valuable for encyclopedic purposes... --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with Betty's compromise. Tenebrae is the one who keeps objecting. Apparently no progress can be made until he signs off on Betty's idea or suggests a better one of his own. I will also note that when the MPAA testified in Michigan and bragged that their member company, Warner Bros, had spent $130 million in Michigan making Batman V. Superman, they didn't reduce it by the $35 million rebate they got. They still plainly spent $130 million. When people want to know what the budget for a movie is, they want to know how much it literally COST to make the movie, not what the exposure for a studio was at the end of the day. Depauldem (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is I "keep objecting" when the very last thing I said to Depauldem was that we had an area of agreement, in that detailed exposition about the budget belongs in the article body and not the infobox. I'm truly perplexed how a rational person can claim that "I'm agreeing with you" is objecting.

Let me try it this way: I want a $300 coat. But my coat budget is $245. Whether I wait for a sale, haggle or get a rebate, I'm not going to go over my budget of $245, It doesn't matter if I pay $300 upfront and I have a contractual agreement to get a rebate that keeps me within my budget. My budget is $245. Complicated tax-rebate issues can be explained in the article body. But Disney budgeted $245 for that coat and paid $245 for that coat. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae your coat analogy fails for many reasons. You are assuming your definition of a budget is the right one. You clearly prefer a net budget amount, after the rebate. But a gross budget is as much the "budget" as net is. Most people want to know what the actual cost was to make a movie, regardless of where the money comes from. So if you want to use the net budget, how are you going to make it work when multiple studios and/or production companies finance a movie? If you are going to argue for the net budget, then net for who? Are you seriously going to have five net budget for five different financiers? And if two studios or more make a film, people don't really want to know or care who financed what portion and by what amounts. If you want to insist on net budget, then we could argue the net budget for the jurisdiction issuing the rebate should be included. Take the $35 million I mentioned that Michigan gave to WB for Superman v. Batman. For MI, the net and gross budget was $35 million. Plainly people don't generally care about this. They want to know the COST of the movie. The gross budget is that number. It never changes. At all times, if the studio needs to spend $200 million to make a film, the gross budget--i.e. the amount paid to all the people and firms so they could make the film--the COST of it will always be $200 million. Try telling the people who are paid $200 million that the budget was only $150M and the would laugh at you. For them, the budget had costs adding up to $200 million. The net cost, on the other hand, will always be subject to change, and it will also be subject to the "net cost for who?" question. Finally, you keep disregarding the fact that in order for Disney to even get said rebate, they still HAD to spend $300 million. To argue that they only budgeted $245 million when the gross spend required them to pay out $300 million is nonsense. They still had to spend $300 million and they prepared a budget that allocated where it went. The gross budget represents the actual contents of the budget and line by line those costs amount to the gross, not the net. Just look at any budget, like Pixels...sure the net budget is listed, but all the actual spend amounts are based on the grand total, because that's the literal cost. Also bear in mind that most film's ever produced were made without a rebate. The modern film incentives have only been in existence since the late 1990s. Even now, many films are made without getting one (certainly most major studios use them, at least for bigger films). But not all, certainly now. In the US, more states are eliminating such programs than there are creating them. And historically, close to none got them. The only way to protect apples to apples is to use the gross budget, which as I said, will always be the cost. Same amount. Always. Net will change often and, when there are multiple producers, the "net for who?" issue makes it impossible to include it in the infobox. You do seem to be the holdout for insisting on your perception of the net budget going in the box. Betty offered compromises, two of them, and I asked you to confirm which of them, if either, you are good with. We have been testy with each other. Let's stop that. I apologize and own up for my part in it. Let's keep this on point from now on. Depauldem (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If the above is too incoherent, please read this Slate article. Using your logic, you would have us list the budget as under $7 million because that was what Paramount was out of pocket for a film that did actually cost over $90 million to make. Are you honestly suggesting we use this net budget number for Paramount and represent it as the budget for a film that cost close to $100 million?? Because I would bet good money the editors on Tomb Raider's page would go insane if you tried to edit that one in.  :) Depauldem (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Many editors over the years have tried to use the "bludgeoning blocks of text" approach to try to get their way. Succinctly: What "most people want to know" is the budget figures that get reported, since professional news-gathering organizations are in the exact business of reporting what "most people want [and need] to know." Your opinion of what "most people want to know" is at odds with the definition used by the entire journalistic profession.

One person's obviously WP:FRINGE analysis says Lara Croft: Tomb Raider cost $7 million to make. Box Office Mojo and others put the budget at around $115 million. As with Age of Ultron and these other movies you're arguing about, you're similarly advocating a personal analysis at odds with virtually every figure given in journalistic sources and aggregators. Under Wikipedia policy, we give the budget reported by secondary sources, and not fringe figures given by someone's personal analysis. As Betty says, "We shouldn't adopt at position that is at odds with the industry norms for documenting budgets, otherwise our figures will be different to everybody else's." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens. Please do some background on Edward Jay Epstien before dismissing him. And if he is using fringe analysis, then so are you. He is pointing out the net cost for Paramount is much less than the gross spend. You have been taking this position the entire time, but now you back off. Which is it?? Once again, you fail to hit on the numerous points I raised above. As for industry norms, just because Betty gave a few examples doesn't make her right about that claim. I could list many the same way. Take American Sniper budget. It's $58.8 million, but they plainly received a $6.8 million tax credit. BOM didn't reduce the gross. And the LA Times also reported the $58 million spent without giving an amount reduced by the tax credit; they do mention the amount of the credit, but do not list a reduced amount because the production spend was, factually, $58 million. Bottom line, even in the example's Betty gave, the gross cost was STILL reported. Depauldem (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Notice of an RfC

Discussions about the definition of a project-wide infobox field properly belongs at that infobox's talk page. An RfC has been called at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Forbes "contributors" are not RS

The budget figure cited in the infobox was referenced to a fake Forbes article. Forbes contributors are not part of Forbes editorial. They are not journalists but just unpaid, HuffPo-like writer-wannabes. Forbes itself disavows them, writing at each column, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." There's no editorial oversight — just Forbes cynically exploiting unpaid would-be journalists with little or no training who will write for "exposure." Amateur journalists writing without editorial oversight are just personal bloggers and not WP:RS.

If Forbes itself won't vouch for these contributors' claims, how on Earth can an encyclopedia do so? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, many Forbes contributors are paid. And yes, there is editorial oversight. Yes, Forbes does have small print saying the opinions of contributors are their own, but this is hardly disavowing them. In any event, the budget numbers listed are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of verifiable fact. Finally, the "contributor" in question here has written for industry trade Deadline, was the chief European correspondent and editor for Variety in the UK for five years. So let's not label hum a "Huffpo writer-wannabe". Depauldem (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hardly disavowing them"? It completely disavows them. Why? Because that is a legal disclaimer. If Forbes trusted the opinions of its "contributors", then it wouldn't need to run that disavowal. And just because Forbes pays some "contributors" some token amount doesn't seem to make any difference to Forbes, which runs the disclaimer for all of them, unpaid and reputedly paid alike. If Forbes believed its "contributors" had value beyond filling space for more online page-views, then the magazine would treat them like professionals. If you're not paid, edited and editorially vetted like a professional, then you are an amateur ... which I described colloquially as a journalist wannabe. Take issue with my colloquialism — fine. But if the analysis of the "contributor" you mention here is so editorially trustworthy, then why isn't Deadline or Variety running his analysis, hmm? And without saying more, I would caution against WP:COI, since you seem to know so much about this individual. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, since it appears Depauldem is unaware, we cannot use Forbes "contributors" since WIkipedia disallows user-generated content. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, it only states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Since the piece doesn't contain his opinion but rather a reporting of numbers, claiming he is disavowed is ridiculous. His piece is in Forbes because he does not work for Variety or Deadline anymore. His bio clearly states this. Now he writes for Forbes, so his writings tend to publish there. In earlier comments, you seemed to favor Variety. So why you would belittle someone who used to be their chief correspondent in Europe is beyond me. You claimed contributors are not paid. Some are. You claimed there is no editorial oversight. There is. I gave links supporting this, you gave none. As for your claim that contributors can't be used, the policy plainly states the following exception: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The Forbes article fits 100% with this. PS--I don't know DOn Groves, I used his bio. And it checks out. Depauldem (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The link to that blog does not, in fact, say, that the contributors are edited. It notes that there are "several hundred" of these "contributors," which precludes individual editing. It also says that each of many "channels" has "a staff editor" who is "responsible for final approval of recruiting and for monitoring all those contributors for the channel.” Monitoring? As in for swear words? Ive been a journalist and author for more than 35 years, and "monitoring" is no way, shape or form editing. The blog post also claims, "Each editor also has at least one producer working under him, responsible for editorial review, technology support, and content programming decisions." Again, a tech producer, which is exactly what's being described ("technology support"), is not an editor. And one or possibly two tech producers per channel are not editing hundreds and hundreds of "contributors"

I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Forbes in a disclaimer says it does not vouch for contributors' opinions. So these bloggers are incredibly different from an L.A. Times staffer who writes a blog on the L.A. Times website. Does the L.A. Times say it doesn't stand behind its blogger's opinions? No. So, no, this remains user-generated content. If you want to begin a discussion on the talk-page for that policy, then by all means we should. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the LA times has said that opinions of contributors or columnists are their own opinion.

Oh, goodness. That piece from 2013 is talking about op-ed contributors, who are not part of the staff or who are staff opinion columnists. The term "blog" doesn't even appear in that piece, which isn't even talking about columns anywhere other than the op-ed page. And even the op-ed page, let alone the rest of the paper, is edited by professional editors. Finally ... really? I could have picked any of several dozens papers and you choose to quibble — and not even quibble correctly — about a random example? For goodness sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor and a producer responsible for editorial review. They may not exercise it often, but they 100% can. Again I point out that the content we are debating is not an expression of the author's opinion in the Forbes piece. It's reporting verifiable fact. Further, the author perfectly fits the "professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write", as this writer is both. Again, chief correspondent and editor for Variety in Europe. Beyond this, we also have Stephen Follows own site and the actual filings on the UK government website. Even if you discount Forbes, there are still two extra layers of sources just for this film.Depauldem (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Forbes "contributor" is not a professional. He's working for free for some token amount. If he could get his analysis published as a legitimate, editor, properly paid-for assignment ... well, why doesn't he? Perhaps the "verifiable fact" is not verifiable, or is being misinterpreted or mis-analyzed. Someone writing essentially for free, with no genuine editorial oversight, whom Forbes has to state in a legal disclaimer is not backed by Forbes ... that is just some blogger. In fact, one whom you pointed out doesn't even cover film but rather automobiles and theme parks, so even by the loosest possible interpretation of the guideline he's not appropriate to cite about film.

As for Stephen Follows, even he himself warns that his numbers may not be reliable. As he himself states, "It’s worth noting that this an imperfect method for finding the exact figures, as from the outside we can’t know if they had other reasons to claim back tax or if money was spent on the film outside of these SPVs." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Would any other editors like User:Fru1tbat User:Betty Logan or others like to weigh in on using the Forbes article? They are widely used in countless other pages, and if it can't be used here, why are they allowed anywhere else? Depauldem (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have no opinion on Forbes "contributors". For the record I had always treated them as "reliable" because I labored under the impression they were paid staff, but Tenebrae contends that there is little or no editorial oversight which puts them more in line with WP:BLOGS. I think the issue should be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, because if Forbes contributors are not considered reliable then I think that would have far-reaching consequences beyond film budgets. I suggest leaving this article alone for the time-being and getting a decision at the RS noticeboard, which would resolve this dispute. A consensus now exists for the "presentation" issue so we just need a consensus for or against using Forbes articles. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Presentation"? Not sure I follow. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

From above, stating in the infobox as "Paid amount (Amount actually after tax credits)". That format reached a consensus. Now it is if the Forbes articles should be used (which I agree with Betty and I don't see them as user-generated). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good and longtime colleague, I'm not sure, given the ongoing discussion, that a consensus has been reached. I think it goes against infobox MOS to have a lengthy, detailed phrase such as "Paid amount (Amount actually after tax credits)". That kind of detail is for the article body; infoboxes are meant to give a quick, simple snapshot — which should be apples-to-apples figures comparable to those in the same kind of infoboxes. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Putting the Forbes issue aside, since we do have the actual filings, can't those be cited for the budget and the rebate without the need to use Forbes or Stephen Follows site? It seemed the discussion was trending on allowing this in The Force Awakens page. Depauldem (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources have to be published and verifiable, and I'm not sure that someone obtaining information via a FOI request counts as "publication". Basically if we are getting the information from Forbes then that is our source for it. I agree with GoneIn60: article talk pages are for discussing article content, not for deliberating over the RS status of a source. We have a whole board for that. Even if we came to the conclusion that Forbes is reliable that consensus only holds on this article, and another set of editors on another article could arrive at the opposite conclusion on a different article. Do you want that conversation on each and every article you edit? Source reliability is not my forte: there are editors who spend all day deliberating this stuff so it's better to get a centralized decision at the RSN noticeboard. I can hazard a guess at what they will say: paid editors who have publication record outside of Forbes are probably reliable, and those that aren unpaid and have no track record are not. This does not have to be resolved today or tomorrow. Life will be much easier in the long run to get a ruling at RSN, and then we act accordingly on the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I should have clarified this earlier User:Betty Logan, the Companies House site posts the company filings that firms are required to file. No freedom of information request needs to be made, as the companies are required to file them, at which time they are published on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe the link was to the Foodles (Disney-production name) page of the UK tax-rebate site. Could you post that link again? If I'm recalling correctly it was a subscription-only site, which while not prohibited certainly makes it hard to check figures, especially if the subscription pricing is industry-based and not consumer-based.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not subscrition based. The old companies house site was, but not the new beta site.Depauldem (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Depauldem. Much appreciated. With all the links flying around, that one got a little buried. It's a useful site for primary documentation, and I am sincerely grateful to you for bringing to to everyone's attention.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we use the actual HMRC accounts then we end up with the same problem as we have for Star Wars: costs in UK sterling that were spent over the course of a couple of years which leaves us with the problem of a currency conversion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan I did use historical exchange rates for the three filing dates, which would seem the most precise. However, and I did prefer this, I think using an average for the period makes the most sense. MeasuringWorth has a handy dataset calculatorDepauldem (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Both sides are making good points. I looked up some information and came across these articles: 1. The thinking behind our contributor payment plan, 2. Amid the Finger Pointing, Journalists Need to Explore New Payment Models, 3. How to Become a Forbes Blogger
  Here's what I've gathered:

- There is a mix of paid and unpaid contributors.

- Editors check in with contributors periodically to review progress and make suggestions.

- Many contributors have experience in journalism, but not all.

- Many staff reporters often meet with contributors for assistance with their coverage of a particular event or story.

- Some contributors go on to become published for work that appeared on Forbes.

And the list goes on. I think in some situations, the case can be made that some of the contributors are just glorified bloggers, but I'm not so sure that case can be made very often, and certainly not in ALL situations. Perhaps this is better suited for a RSN discussion, but I thought I'd share a few thoughts here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughts User:GoneIn60. Despite what Tenebrae thinks about this particular Forbes contributor, the fact Forbes editorial team and staff selects who gets to contribute negates the assertion that this is user generated content akin to IMDB, where anyone can participate at any time. 2. Even if it could be considered user generated content, the policy has the following two exceptions:

"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. (See WP:NEWSBLOG.)

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide."

The Forbes article in question was written by a professional journalist in the field of the film industry. Further, he was published by multiple reliable third party publications, including Variety, a film industry trade, where he was chief editor and correspondent in Europe for many years. In short, the Forbes contributor meets two of the exceptions to the policy, assuming it even applies.Depauldem (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Groves seems like he's been a professional journalist, so leaving aside my disappointment that he's letting himself be exploited this way, if we do use him as a source we certainly can't list the field as "work=Forbes" since this content does not comes from Forbes editorial staff, a fact Forbes makes clear in its disclaimer. The source would accurately need to be something like "publisher= Forbes "Contributors" blog".

And in case, explaining the budget figuring and going into minutiae about tax rebates is something for the article body and not for an infobox.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am fine editing the source to reflect your input. As for the infobox, as Betty Logan noted above, there was consensus about doing it in the infobox. But I am also fine with the note or a line in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems the proper way to go. I completely agree.

But what figure goes in the infobox: The $10 list price of the cost or the $5 Disney actually budgeted for and spent? (Other editors: See the shared metaphor in the section above this.) --

I still advocate the The Dark Knight Rises approach we mentioned as a model above. However, if Tenebrae feels this is too much exposition for the infobox then it seems the fairest way to go about it is to take the two extremes as a range i.e. $230–300 million. That range would take the lowest possible figure after applying the rebate, and the highest possible figure without factoring in the rebate. Whatever your interpretation of the figures, then the "true" cost as you perceive it will be covered by that range. The exposition giving a breaking down of this figure can go in a note. Betty Logan (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Betty, I like either of your ideas above. And thank you for your points on the Harry Potter thread. You were right there and I was wrong. Perhaps the negative cost for that film belongs in the body of the article. I would do it, but Tenebrae is hell bent on edit warring with me on anything I do. Depauldem (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This sounds good, except I think it's misleading to give an apples-to-oranges range, i.e., net to gross. Every other range I can think of in infoboxes for film and anything else is apples to apples, i.e. two estimates of net or two estimates of gross. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What sounds good, exactly User:Tenebrae? To clarify, I agree with Betty's two suggestions that either 1. The budget be listed as the gross amount spent with a parenthetical showing the amount after the rebate (and the amount of said rebate) or; 2. We give the budget as a range with both and then explaining the rebate in a note. So are you signing off on one of these two?? As for my comment about including the negative cost in the body of the article, I was specifically referring to the Harry Potter entry and only then because the budget listed there includes potentially non production related costs, as Betty noted, like the advance to Rowling. Am I wrong in assuming that is the area where you are agreeing with me? Depauldem (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my third comment on this page today, replying to three by Depauldem. They probably should be read in the order found in Page history.

Betty suggested the compromise of using both your figures. (00:05, 3 April 2016) I agreed and, in a later post, she agreed with my own suggestion that details about the tax rebate not be in the infobox, which is supposed to be a quick-read snapshot. (11:24, 9 April 2016) This means such details go in the article body. While she also suggested in the same post that the infobox have a range of budgets including both net and gross, I replied that that would be an apples-to-orange comparison. We're still discussing that, but also she also said, "We shouldn't adopt at position that is at odds with the industry norms for documenting budgets...." (13:10, 9 April 2016) That supports Wikipedia policy: The infobox should give the budget as reported by the bulk of reliable secondary sources, ignoring figures given by WP:FRINGE claims or by an editor's detailed analysis. Those details belong in the article body, not the infobox. The infobox should give the same. normal figure that the bulk of industry sources give.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I like how Depauldem falsely claims I am "hell bent on edit warring with me on anything I do" when A) he's the the one with multiple edit-warring warnings, and B) the very last thing I said to him was that we had an area of agreement, in that detailed exposition about the budget belongs in the article body and not the infobox. I'm truly perplexed how a rational person can claim that "I'm agreeing with you" is edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You were responsible for initiating that edit war and continuing it, and you know it. We are both guilty. Surely you can concede that. Depauldem (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, wow, the things you say and the attitude you cop. As another editor says on your own talk page, "you started edit warring when discussion failed instead of pursuing dispute resolution." Jeeminy Christmas.

All the other editors here besides you are trying to come up with workable, compromise solutions. You have been arguing from the beginning simply to have your own way. You tell that editor on your talk page, "My engagement on Wikipedia is rather new, and I apologize for my inexperience." Well, then, please: Follow the example of us other editors and try to find a compromise we all can live with. I'm addressing this now in my response to your comment at 03:34, 10 April 2016. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We had reached one. Put the figure in the infobox with a parenthetical or in a note. In either case, the full spend is in the infobox. You are the one backtracking now. User:Betty Logan & User:Fru1tbat please chime in.Depauldem (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

See this comment (15:39, 10 April 2016) comment) for reasoning with timestamps.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This debate is a little overwhelming to read through here, doesn't seem to be getting any closer to conclusion between the two most heavily involved parties, and spans at least one or two other articles - maybe we need to reopen it in another (broader?) forum, where it might be more exposed to other interested editors... --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Fru1tbat see the new section below. The real hang up is on how to report the cost of the movie. I believe you were in the amount literally spent camp rather than the out of pocket camp. Depauldem (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Notification There is now a debate at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Forbes_article_by_credible_contributor regarding Forbes contributors. It Tenebrae (or anyone else for that matter) has anything to contribute to that discussion I suggest he heads over there. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

What is a budget?

To keep the debate in a single page in a single place, let's talk this issue out here. What should the budget figure represent? Should it be the actual gross budget of the film--i.e. the amount paid out to produce. Or should it be the net budget to the studio after it gets a rebate or other subsidy? Take American Sniper. The reported budget is $58 million, but it did get $6.8 million in tax credits. This example is representative of the issue for any film we are talking about. Is the budget the amount spent to produce: $58 million? Or is it $51 million, which is the net cost to WB after the $6.8 million tax credit is accounted for? (for the record, BOM lists budget as $58 million)Depauldem (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The total budget before any discounts. Mention discounts in the body. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Given Hollywood creative accounting, I believe the infobox should contain the figures most widely reported in reliable, professional journalistic sources, preferably trade sources, or reliable, widely used aggregators such as BOM. Details of discounts, tax rebates, etc. really belong in the article body.

I would note that a movie studio figures any discounts/rebates etc. into its budget, and if one location will not provide them, another location often will; studios often change production locales on that basis. As I've noted elsewhere, if a coat costs $300 and my budget is $245, I wait for a sale, negotiate or get a rebate. Whatever way, my budget is $245 and I pay no more than $245.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And your coat example has been discredited. The gross cost is still the gross cost. Now please answer the question, is the budget on American Sniper $58 million or is $51 million?Depauldem (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Discredited by whom? You? You're welcome to your opinion. But if you're a film professional as you claim to be, you know very well that a production builds any rebate into its budget beforehand. Disney never spent as much to make the movie as you claim it did. I'm quite sure Disney would agree.

As for American Sniper ... what, we're supposed to debate over a sixth or seventh movie? Starting the same discussion on so many pages and is disruptive behavior, and if you had more respect for the Wikipedia process, which values deliberation, compromise and consensus, you'd realize that.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you just answer the question. Is it $58 million or $51 million? Stand by your position and answer the question. Depauldem (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand the way Wikipedia works. You don't get to make demands, or throw a temper tantrum, or stamp your feet. You've opened six or seven discussions on the same topic. You can demand an eighth discussion all you want, and while you may be used to having your way in the real world, you can't always have your way here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Lord. Everyone wanted a discussion about the budget. I started here. In one place. Why do you refuse to answer the question? User: Darkwarriorblake did. You have arguing your ridiculous coat example ad nauseam. If you stand by that analogy, then please tell us what the budget for American Sniper is: $58 million or $51 million?? Stop attacking me and advance the discussion. Depauldem (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Budget vs Costs. It depends on the context you want to use the figures in. The 'budget' for making a film (in the UK at least) is the amount of money available and what it is/will be/was spent on. This will also include any tax rebate that will be rebated post-production from the government as a final figure in the costs. Eg: the budget for a film will be 150 million, but due to a 10 million rebate the cost to the studio will be known in advance as 140 million. But the actual budget 'money allotted to spend on production' will be the higher amount, as that is how spending is scheduled. If a film cost a studio 140 million to make, that is not necessarily the budget given various grants and tax rebates available. Betty Logan has given a more than adaquate explanation above in how that works in the UK. If you want to talk about budget, you would use the amount spent/available to be spent. If you want to talk about profitability, you would not use the budget, you would use the cost to the studio factoring in rebates etc. Most newspapers, magazines, trade publications etc report the 'budget' as the commonly accepted usage of the word in finance 'how much was spent'. Tax rebates and accounts only come in to play when calculating costs and profitibility (an important distinction for accountants and film stars who negotiate a %)Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Only in death. A budget, in its simplest form, is the forecasted expenditure based on a plan of how it will be spent. The term is rather vague in the context it's being used here. More specific terms would be gross cost and net cost (or gross budget and net budget), which clearly define what aspect you are referring to. The budget as a whole can look at either or both, which is why additional disambiguation is needed. A suggestion would be to split the budget parameter in the infobox into these two fields, making it very clear what part of the budget is being referred to. Also, since we usually have a section dedicated to the budget itself, it's probably not worth all the fuss about what goes into the infobox. Anyone particularly interested in this figure will scroll down and read the prose. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Running time

Based on the BBFC figure of 141 minutes 6 seconds, the film's running time has been long stable in the infobox as 141 minutes, in accordance with standard rounding procedure of rounding down through 29 seconds and rounding up for 30 seconds or more. Some days ago, an editor made a good-faith change to 142 minutes, saying it was 6 seconds into the 142nd minute. An anon IP has since changed it back to 141.

In my discussion with the good-faith editor on his talk page, he said that as a way of deciding between 141 and 142, we look at the running time on iTunes, etc. I could not find a running time at iTunes; however, the DVD is listed as 141 minutes [4] and The New York Times review of the original theatrical release also gives 141 minutes [5]. It would appear that in the absence of compelling evidence otherwise, 141 minutes is the accepted figure throughout the industry and should remain.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ferrigno

I know there was a discussion before about him but I feel hat more pertained to the site Nuke the Fridge (never heard of it). I sourced with Cinemablend and included an interview Ferrigno gave to Comicbook.com in my edit summary as I wasn't aware of it was reliable or not. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cinema Blend is citing Nuke the Fridge, which fails WP:FRUIT. The Comicbook.com source does not confirm his involvement with the film. He says: "They have a library with my voices but a contract I can't really talk about it until after the release. They have a library of my voices and growls and everything. They always use that in everything." As far as I know, not further confirmation has come out on the matter since the release, and I don't believe he received a credit in the film. I'm pretty sure the voice was all/mainly Ruffalo this time around. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring redlink editor

Two editors have now reverted User:YugiMuto, who is edit-warring and leaving uncivil comments in edit summaries. I have gone to his talk page to ask that he please engage in discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Says the person who probably hasn't looked at the reason why I changed it. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! That's the reason why, Sherlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YugiMuto (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

YugiMuto (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Citation needed for "overloading the machine" in the plot section. There is ZERO evidence to support such a baseless assumption. Wikipedia is a hypocrite for supporting unreliable (and thus uncredible) statements.YugiMuto (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a fictional film with fictional events that do not have to abide by normal laws of physics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Avengers: Age of Ultron. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6a3efP1dX?url=https://www.imax.com/movies/m/avengers-age-of-ultron-an-imax-3d-experience/ to https://www.imax.com/movies/m/avengers-age-of-ultron-an-imax-3d-experience/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6OhsTpLrL?url=http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/avengers-stars-battle-out-hawley-6937214 to http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/avengers-stars-battle-out-hawley-6937214
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SdVTXgcs?url=http://video.ew.com/v/94970059/jeremy-renner-cobie-smulders-reveal-what-they-won-t-be-doing-in-avengers-age-of-ultron.htm to http://video.ew.com/v/94970059/jeremy-renner-cobie-smulders-reveal-what-they-won-t-be-doing-in-avengers-age-of-ultron.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6TYSJD8o4?url=http://www.indiewire.com/boxofficeinsider/need-an-extra-dimension-heres-an-updated-imax-3d-and-4d-release-schedule-20140928 to http://www.indiewire.com/boxofficeinsider/need-an-extra-dimension-heres-an-updated-imax-3d-and-4d-release-schedule-20140928
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6WzuWDlOp?url=https://soundcloud.com/891-abc-adelaide/danny-elfman to https://soundcloud.com/891-abc-adelaide/danny-elfman
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Y8Pqv0lB?url=http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/avengers-age-ultron-marvel-humor-peril-comic-book-triumph/ to http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/avengers-age-ultron-marvel-humor-peril-comic-book-triumph/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Zp5PV6W3?url=http://pro.boxoffice.com/news/2015-04-26-global-report-avengers-age-of-ultron-off-to-hot-start-furious-7-crosses-1-billion-overseas-becomes-1-movie-of-all-time-in-china to http://pro.boxoffice.com/news/2015-04-26-global-report-avengers-age-of-ultron-off-to-hot-start-furious-7-crosses-1-billion-overseas-becomes-1-movie-of-all-time-in-china

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast listing in lead paragraph needs trimming

WP:FILMLEAD doesn't mention the cast, so we are presumably supposed to deal with this on a film-by-film basis. The billing is not an appropriate guide to who needs to be mentioned in the lead of our article, in this case.

Idris Elba and Hayley Atwell, for instance, appeared on-screen for less than a minute each, so calling them a part of the "ensemble cast" (a cast in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production) is definitely wrong.

And just look at the lead paragraph at a glance -- it's a mess of links, most of them names of actors, most with relatively minor, and some with very minor, roles in the film. We shouldn't open any article, much less a Good Article, with a string of names that no one in their right mind would try to read from start to finish.

182.251.140.111 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#What_does_.22ensemble_cast.22_mean.3F for further discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avengers: Age of Ultron. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6XXDWdCW7?url=http://movies.inquirer.net/16982/get-to-know-the-avengers-as-they-assemble-for-new-adventure to http://movies.inquirer.net/16982/get-to-know-the-avengers-as-they-assemble-for-new-adventure

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)