Talk:Late Night (film)

Principal photography

Barkeep49 has moved this back to draft, citing WP:NFF and TOOSOON. However, according to this, Variety, 24 April, "Principal photography has commenced in New York." Could someone move it back into mainspace please. Edwardx (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edwardx: I was relying on the portion of WP:NFF which states,

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. "

Principal photography alone doesn't mean an article is ready for the main space in my reading of what applies here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviews

If anyone wants to easily add Reviews to the article they can revert an unexplained change by an anon IPv6 editor, which inexplicably removed several reviews or they can restore my edit which added a reviews but didn't format them pretty or a bit of both. -- 109.76.211.92 (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism by anon ipv6. -- 109.76.210.201 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Need a better source for the film's production budget.

I have removed a reference to "www.the-numbers.com" regarding the film's production budget, which states a $4 million figure -- exceedingly low -- that is not reflected in any reliable source like Variety, BoxOfficeMojo, Deadline, or the Hollywood Reporter, for example. (These sites are used to reference other films' budgets on Wikipedia.) If someone can find a reliable source for the film's budget, please post it. But "www.the-numbers.com" seems doesn't seem very reliable.

Also, there's another page on the same site that states the film's budget as "Unknown - Estimated at $20 million" here: [1], making the $4 million figure seem even more suspect. Again, let's get a more reliable source for the budget. --Rajivalia (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox film, The-Numbers is specifically recommended as a source, and it is every bit as reliable as Box Office Mojo (often more so, Box Office Mojo frequently fails to update the international totals or in this case completely fails to list the budget).

Furthermore Infobox film specifically says do not cherrypick sources. -- 109.78.225.76 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hollywood accounting is complex. I encourage you to read up on the subject if you have not already done so. We have to go with the sources, and those sources can be contradictory.

Variety magazine is often a good source of budget information, but it does not list the budget for this film. Variety does say that Amazon.com paid $13 million [2][3] for the film. Since the film sold to Amazon for $13 million, it is highly likely the production budget was less than $13 million. Another circumstantial indicator for comparison is that The Big Sick was made for $5 million and sold to Amazon for $12.5 million. -- 109.78.225.76 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Deadline.com, an acceptable source, reports here [4] that Amazon spent an additional $35 million in marketing for Late Night, which would be outlandish for a movie with a $4 million budget. It would mean the promotion cost 875% of what the movie cost. Hollywood accounting is complex. I encourage you to read up on the subject if you have not already done so.

I'm going to remove the unsubstantiated figure sourced to "The Numbers.com," which, while mentioned on the Infobox template, is not a strong enough source. For every other film currently in the Top Ten, and for nearly every other major film release in the past decade, "The-Numbers.com" is not the source for a film's budget info on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source -- Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Box Office Mojo, NYTimes, Forbes, etc. -- that specifically states the movie's production budget, rather than what Amazon paid to distribute the film, which is another matter entirely, feel free to repost. Thanks!

Also, using The Big Sick as a "circumstantial indicator" is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and irrelevant. We can't "guess" at the production budget based on The Big Sick or an unrelated distribution cost number.

But speaking of The Big Sick, that Wiki article uses "Deadline.com" as its budget source, which is fine. Again, find a reliable source. --Rajivalia (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

More reliably sourced data suggesting the film's budget was far more than $4 million.

According to this article[5] in Deadline.com today, "Amazon observed weeks ago that Late Night was going to tank on tracking, with a $4M-$5M opening."

A film that made its entire production budget back, plus another million, on its opening weekend would not "tank," but would be hailed as a huge success. For context, here's the full paragraph from Deadline.com:

And Amazon’s Late Night, another misfire in the indie female cinema space with $4.7M after the studio spent $13M for the pic at Sundance, and from what we hear, another $35M in marketing. Poor results for a film with good exits of a B+ CinemaScore and an 80% on PostTrak from the core female 25+ audience, who showed up at 52%. Amazon observed weeks ago that Late Night was going to tank on tracking, with a $4M-$5M opening. They attempted to shift at the last minute by bowing the film in NY and LA last weekend, and notched the best specialty release theater average opening of $61.5k to date this year. Even though Amazon largely respects theatrical windows (that’s going to change with its awards season push for another Sundance pick-up, The Report, this fall), if you think about it, Late Night is an advertisement for Amazon Prime, because that’s the end game for this Mindy Kaling Working Girl comedy. It may also be one of the key reasons why people aren’t rushing out to it.

And here's another reliable source, Forbes.com: [6]

Amazon Studios released Late Night into wide release yesterday, with mixed results. The well-reviewed workplace comedy, about a female talk show host (Emma Thompson) who begrudgingly hires a female writer (Mindy Kaling) in a bid to stay relevant, was procured for $13 million at this year's Sundance, the biggest buy ever for a straight domestic theatrical offering. That said, this is 2019, and the film's theatrical release is arguably a glorified advertisement for its eventual home on Amazon Prime. Cue a $1.7 million Friday and a likely $4.5 million weekend in 2,218 theaters, for a mediocre $2,028 per-theater average.

Amazon knew this was coming, which is why they platformed it in New York and LA last weekend to get at least one week of positive financial coverage. It's a good and entertaining movie, one that's better than The Devil Wears Prada because it doesn't penalize its female characters for seeking and maintaining power, and in a different time it would have been a summer sleeper amid the tentpoles. But the audience that once went to theaters to see something other than Avengers and Aladdin now stays home and gets their adult/grown-up entertainment via Netflix, Hulu or VOD. It's a predictable tragedy.

Until a reliable source releases the film's production budget, best not to guess at it, or to link to a site as unreliable as "The Numbers.com" --Rajivalia (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Amazon paid $13 million for US distribution rights, no one disagrees, that makes less than $13 million at the US box office a bad result for Amazon. It doesn't change what the film cost to make, it doesn't change the budget if Amazon spends millions on marketing. That's all interesting and all worth including in the article text. It doesn't change the fact that Template:Infobox film recommends using The-Numbers.com as a source, and there's no good reason to cherry pick or delete that budget figure from the Infobox. Your low opinion of The-Numbers.com doesn't change the fact that it is considered a reliable source, and you are the one ignoring a guideline. Using The-Numbers.com is not "guessing" it is using the available sources. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not considered a reliable source if there are no other reliable sources to corroborate it, which isn't true of any other 2019 wide release on Wikipedia. More damning, another page on The-Numbers.com lists the film's budget as high as $20 million. That's an excellent reason to reserve judgment until we get at least one other reliable source. We have to take care that people connected to the film's production are not coming here with unreliable info. Stop posting unreliable info. --Rajivalia (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to provide multiple corroborating sources for a budget figure.

The-Numbers.com has posted two different figures, I think the higher figure was a mistake but based on the available sources the budget is either $4 million or $20 million. Template Infobox film says not to cherry pick, so if you want to follow the rules strictly you could include both figures in the Infobox if you insist, but to delete the budget figure entirely ignores the warning to not cherry pick. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to post an estimated budget of between $4M-$20MM, reserving the right to change the amount should another reliable source post the film's production budget, I would have no problem with that. Update: I've done it myself. Hopefully, this solves things for now. --Rajivalia (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Someone posting under several anon IPs keeps adding a link to an unreliable source for the movie's production budget.

Here are the accounts: [7], [8], [9] I'll update if more appear. --Rajivalia (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You deleted a reliable source. You not only deleted the source you deleted the whole line from the Infobox and ignored the recommendations of Template:Infobox film that make it clear that The-Numbers is a reliable source.

At this point other opinions would be a good idea, I will ask for a WP:3RD opinion. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I deleted a very shaky source that has two conflicting amounts for the film's budget: one as low as $4MM and one as high as $20MM. This, combined with the fact that no other reliable source has any info for the film's budget, requires us to be circumspect about posting such info, especially since every other other film currently in the Top 10 -- [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], . -- uses a source other than "The Numbers.com" for its budget on Wikipedia. Template:Infobox film offers The-Numbers as a sourcing option, but that's hardly written in stone. Especially under these circumstances, we have to go with a source more reliable than the rarely used "The-Numbers.com." We need at least one more reliable source. --Rajivalia (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I know people do not like anonymous IP editors but there is no requirement to get an account. My issue is with people deleting things without good reasons (but I'm glad you did provide an edit summary, many others don't even bother with that). The opening numbers do not look good, including the budget doesn't make them look any better. Amazon paid $13 million for US distribution rights, that's the figure any box office analysis needs to pay attention to, and it is good that the article text explains that.

Looking at it more closely the news item you pointed to was dated June 1, 2019 and said the budget was "Unknown - Estimated at $20 million" https://www.the-numbers.com/news/239380830-2019-Preview-June

The film was released a week later June 7, and it is perfectly reasonable that the film summary page simply has more up to date information, it gets frequently updated with box office grosses, but no one goes back and changes the news item. You might not have seen it but it isn't like Variety or Box Office Mojo haven't changed their figures when new information became available. Editors strangely trust Box Office Mojo by default, and it gets used everywhere but it is the failure of Box Office Mojo that necessitates using a different source. There is no need to be excessively skeptical of The-Numbers.com and deleting the number from the Infobox doesn't help readers at all. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Per our colloquy above, I've restored the infobox with an estimated budget. Hopefully, a secondary reliable source will provide the film's production budget. It's just so rare that "The-Numbers.com" would be the only budget source for a major film release. --Rajivalia (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not ideal but it will do. Certainly better than not listing anything at all. Hopefully better information will become available soon. -- 109.78.227.157 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Budget continued

The budget was changed to $7.5 million [19] This was based on Tax Credits the film received [20] (page 8, second last in table) which said the film spent $9,536,261 in New York, and that of that $6,783,626 was eligible for tax credits, and ultimately $2,035,088 was issued in Tax Credits.

The total spend was $9.5 million. It seems inappropriate to perform calculations that have not clearly been explained and misleading to say the budget was $7.5 million. I think it is more appropriate to list the higher figure of $9.5 million, and will change the article to that figure. -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

My earlier change was ignored as if this was clear and simple but it is not. The document says that $9,536,261 was spent in NYS (New York State). They almost certainly spent even more than that but that does tell us they spent at least at least $9.5 million, and you could say the gross budget was at least $9.5 million. That doesn't even cover post production spending, (editing/special effect/etc) and the special effects work was done by a company called Alchemy 24, based in Montreal Canada[21] (not New York, so it is an expense that wouldn't need to be mention in these New York documents).

The document lists $6,783,626 as only as "Qualified Costs", ie cost that met the New York eligibility criteria (qualified) to potentially get rebates against. The document does not say that $6.5 was the budget, or net budget. It is not at all clear that editors can even make the leap and claim that figure represents the budget. -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)