Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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."[1] 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."[2] Finally, if you look at the actual filings for the various productions at the Companies House site[3] 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.[4]
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.[5] Depauldem (talk) 04:03, 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[6]
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)
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)
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)
References
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.
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:
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[1]. 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.[2]
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. [3] 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."[4]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 and The New York Times review of the original theatrical release also gives 141 minutes . 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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.