Jump to content

Talk:List of most expensive non-English-language films

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

Untitled

[edit]

I wonder what is the source of the information here? This is a very interesting resource, but how reliable it is? I very much doubt it if the cost quited for the 1927 Metropolis by Fritz Lang has much to do with reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovek7 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

most of films I put on the list have reference on their on page. hire is reference for Metropolis http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/metropolis.htm Vladar86 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy on that reference seems to have added a zero. 7 mil RM of 1927 would be about 28 mil USD (2007), not 200 mil. See this calculation for the conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegA (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Metropolis_(film) has the film budget at $15 mil USD based on a 5 mil DM. I also did some computation myself, using the 7 mil DM and pure CPI for inflation you get a figure below $30 mil current USD. Other inflation approaches could lead to a much higher estimate. For example, if you would use inflation in skilled worker compensation wage instead of CPI, you would end-up way above $200 mil current USD. Anyway, the www.moria.co.nz source is a New Zealand website that could be stating New Zealand dollars. I am changing the figure so that it matches the main wikipedia page about this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astator (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Das Boot is missing from the list. Accoring to Wikipedia, it cost 32 million Deutsch Marks to make in 1981, which certainly is way above the 5 million US$ limit (DM was only slightly weaker than the US$, and when you account for 27 years of inflation...). I'd also assume the 1993 film Stalingrad might fir there, although I cannot find right out the budget for it. RealLeo (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munchhausen is missing from this list. UFA spent 6.5 million RM on it, which is equivalent to about 25 million USD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.114.113 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This seems like a pretty clear case of original research, and absent definitive information about all the high-budget foreign films, this list seems pretty suspect. Where is Napoleon? Children of Paradise? The Leopard? Jun-Dai (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge about films, but the Wikipedia article about the 1968 film War and Peace (War_and_Peace_(1968_film)) states that the film cost the equivalent of 700 million 2007 US Dollars. Lithrium (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have one thing to add to this conversation. "The Republic of Uzice", Yugoslavian WWII movie should be on this list. No one knows the exact amount spent on shooting, but it is surely between 20 and 30 millions of dollars in 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klikiriki (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

[edit]

I would like to know the source of figures of some of these films' budgets. Pray tell me how is it that the budget of Enthiran is twice the budget of Ra.One? As per official sources, the budget of Ra.One was $25 million approximately, while the budget of Enthiran was $26 million. Please check the relevant articles for the confirmation. IMO, this whole list needs a BIG overhaul. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of films missing for France

[edit]

A lot of films are missing for France : just in 2010 there's 10 films above 20m$ : http://www.journaldunet.com/economie/communication/films-les-plus-chers-2010.shtml Top 2001 : http://prep-cncfr.seevia.com/d_stat/dossiers/bilancine02/5.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loup Solitaire 81 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Plus here are some others (http://www.cinefinances.info/film/543) : Arthur 3 La Guerre des deux mondes : 56 402 908,00 € Océans : 49 620 010,00 € Sur la piste du Marsupilami : 39 376 399,00 € Or noir : 38 552 280,00 € From Paris With Love : 37 841 715,00 € — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loup Solitaire 81 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There's a Mega Indian Tamil Movie called "I" directed by Mr. Shankar shanmugam, released in 2015. This is considered the most expensive movie from India and budget of this movie is 180Cr. rupees, which is 30,674,846 USD. This movie holds higher rank than "Baahubali". The List is to be updated.

---Karthik--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.2.29 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? All China and France?

[edit]

Is this list dominated by China and France because they massively out-spend every other country, or is it just that the authors of this article only had data for these two countries?

I mean, yes, I noticed a sprinkling of films from Italy, Japan and Hong Kong, but the absolute dominance of China and France is hard to believe. It seems the first line's mention of "non-definitive" is a misleading understatement. Great floors (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is Statista?

[edit]

I see Statista being used to support Flowers of War and Red Cliff[1]. What is this site and how does it qualify as WP:RS? Does it just aggregate data scraped from other sources or is there an independent verification? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a WP:TERTIARY source. It seems you have to subscribe to find out where they got the actual data from. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive non-English-language films. 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).

  • 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) 07:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of most expensive non-English-language films. 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).

  • 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) 14:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add box office revenues ?

[edit]

Seems relevant. Any opinion ? 2A01:E34:EE77:8050:A0F6:8DFC:DEA0:2066 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous information. It is not relevant to the topic at all. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar conversions

[edit]

Reo kwon Will you please stop changing the conversion values for grosses. The article uses the US Inland Revenue service which is available https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/yearly-average-currency-exchange-rates. A Forex site is NOT a reliable source. It will average the values at which currencies where traded i.e. it is not a reliable source for average annual conversions.

As you can see from the IRS, in 2018, the average conversion rate for rupees was 68.422 rupees to one dollar. If the film cost 500 crore that would convert to $73.3 million. If the film cost 570 crore that would convert to $83.3 million.

Also, you keep removing the sort that means when you sort the column in order it moves 2.0 out of position. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reo kwon When I click on the source you added it takes me to this article: https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/bollywood/nct-127s-jungwoo-diagnosed-covid-19-japan-tour-members-test-negative/. It does not say anything about 2.0 costing 400 crore. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the Forex source. However, this is the source for Rs. 400 Cr estimate for 2.0 budget. There was a lot of discussion on this very point on the talk page of 2.0 for which can be found on the archives of Talk pages. 2.0 should be adjusted based on the average of its highest and lowest estimates from independent third-party sources. Reo kwon (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 2.0's budget, there is a clear consensus as per Talk:2.0_(film)/Archive_2#RfC and Talk:List of most expensive Indian films#2.0's budget that it's budget has no definite figures, therefore it should be presented as a range. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That part is clear. But what's the lower estimate? The lowest estimate from a reliable third party is Rs. 400 cr figure from Bollywod Hungama. Director Shankar also said that its budget is in the range of 400 to 450 cr. So, what should be the range? Rs. 400 to 570 cr? Or 500 to 570 cr? Reo kwon (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming to the talk page. If you look at Talk:2.0_(film)/Archive_2#RfC you will see I participated and supported a range. At the time the range under discussion was 400–543 crore. I don't have an issue with the lower figure, but what I would say is that discussion was three years ago and the figures have since been refined to 500–570 crore at both List of most expensive Indian films and 2.0 (film). So my point is actually more basic than the contested issue: before we get to the issue of conversion, all three articles should really start with the same base range. The note at 2.0_(film)#cite_note-8 suggests 400–600 crore as two extremes for the budget but it also suggests that 500–570 crore is the more realistic range for the budget. Consistency is the key point here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even I was conflicted about the range to put the budget in. The note mentions independent sources. Since Bollywood Hungama is an independent source and is considered to be a reliable here by Wikipedians I thought their figure should be mentioned too. As it is, 2.0 is a complicated issue as the figures vary very widely between sources and sometimes within the same source. Reo kwon (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question is whether or not the 400 crore estimate is credible or not (the RFC concluded it was), the question is whether it has been superseded by more up to date information. I would suggest the best place for that discussion is at Talk:2.0 (film), since that is where the original RFC was held. I think having different estimates at the different articles causes confusion and could instigate edit-warring, since it will not be clear to editors/readers why we are using different numbers. I am happy for this article to abide by whatever the consensus is, but it needs to be debated properly and then the consensus needs to be rolled out across all three articles. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by?

[edit]

@Betty Logan I think the table should be sorted by the average of highest and lowest estimates. Otherwise, then only the highest estimate is being considered and no importance is being given to the lower estimates. Sorting by average solves that issue as we would be avoiding the extreme values. It would also make it closer to both the extremes. Reo kwon (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The average would be WP:Original research because as an estimate it is no more probable than any other number in the range. For example, if you have one source that estimates $100 million, and another source that estimate $100–150 million then what would you do in the scenario? So there are only really two choices with sorting ranges: you either sort using the upper-bound estimate or the lower-bound estimate. At List of biggest box-office bombs the upper-bound estimate is used. Whichever bound is chosen it has to be consistent through the chart. I think with budgets the upper-bound is generally a better choice because readers are interesting in knowing what the most expensive films are. If you sort the chart at List of biggest box-office bombs you can easily see that the record-holder is one of four possible films without having to read through the rest of the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand the List of most expensive films ranks films using the lower estimate, and puts the higher estimates in notes below the table. This is a good way of doing it because it solves the sorting problem. Either way I am not too bothered whether the lower or upper estimate is used, but I think it has to be one or the other otherwise you end up in OR territory. Betty Logan (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we use the "lower estimate sort with higher estimates in notes" on this page as well? The thing is there is a tendency by the producers and media to hype up a film's budget to grab attention. These sorts of issues can be seen in many Indian films where it's hard to get the right estimate of the film's budget. Reo kwon (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't mind which approach is taken, it's just got to be consistent for every film in the list. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Agora should be on here

[edit]

Spanish film that cost 50 million 2A02:8071:67C0:4C40:2AB9:A50C:647C:9AFD (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

valerian and the city of a thousand planets

[edit]

valerian and the city of a thousand planets budget 223 million dolars. year: 2017. country: france 37.11.201.45 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I made a mistake, budget 209 millions dolar: source: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Valerian_and_the_City_of_a_Thousand_Planets#:~:text=Besson%20independently%20financed%20and%20personally,expensive%20independent%20film%20ever%20made. 37.11.201.45 (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not eligible for the list. Despite being French, it is an English-language film. Betty Logan (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_non-English-language_films&oldid=1243546711"