Talk:Love and Monsters (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Love and Monsters (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

On 8 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Budget

An overenthusiastic editor incorrectly claimed the production budget for this film was $30 million. They failed to be careful not to confuse Australian Dollars with US dollars. I corrected this error and made it clearer that the budget was AUS$ not USD. The source for that figure was an article from February 2019 by an Australian site KFTV.com.[1] (FYI a quick and dirty conversion of AUS$30 million dollars to USD is approximately $21-22 million.) It is not even certain that figure was actually the budget figure, the article only said "Monster Problems is scheduled to spend around A$30m in Queensland" which likely represents just the money spent on location, which is eligible for the RFTO or location offset. Post production costs would usually be separate from the spending eligible for tax offsets in Queensland.

Template Infobox film warns editors not to cherry pick budget figures. Despite this, the previous source was unceremoniously dumped, replaced with an article dated October 19 2020, claiming the budget was $30 million USD.[2] Maybe Indiewire has sources of their own but it seems a lot like circular (mis)reporting, and that they picked up the wrong figure too.

Budget figures should always be taken with a grain of salt but readers should be especially skeptical about the claimed budget figures for this film. Hopefully better sources such as Variety.com or The Hollywood Reporter will become available later. -- 109.77.216.14 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers[3] and Box office mojo did not publish any budget figures for this film.[4] It is increasingly unlikely that budget figures will become available for this film. (Digging into the Australian tax rebates might reveal more details about what was spent on location but not necessarily the actual budget.) -- 109.76.204.195 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out, almost three years later, that its budget is still shown as $30 million. Considering its overwhelmingly positive reviews, I also assume the $1.1 m "box office" figure refers only to its limited theatrical release and doesn't consider streaming, thus giving the false impression that the picture was a bomb. Can't anything be done about this? Or are we locked into WP's obviously pre-streaming template? It doesn't seem fair, or particularly good reference practice. – 2001:569:72B0:D900:E5BB:21BC:7D9D:387E (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay

Found an interesting article about the screenplay[5] and another article from the same author comparing the final film to the screenplay.[6] There are a few interesting changes, for example: in the screenplay Joel had never met Aimee before. I would hope to find more sources, articles, interviews, and include this information in the Production section at some point. -- 109.76.205.197 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix

People keep adding Netflix as the distributor. I'm still not convinced that the film eventually making its way to Neflix months after the film was release makes them the distributor in the sense intended by WP:FILMDIST. It is not clear that anyone other that Paramount is technically the distributor. -- 109.78.207.148 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that the film eventually making its way to Netflix internationally -- as a great many films inevitably do -- is as significant as some editors are making it out to be. I do not think a release on Netflix months later is comparable to a secondary international release (like a UK premiere a few weeks after a US premiere in pre covid times). It was already available as VOD if you were willing to pay a premium for it, and coming to Netflix seems more comparable to being released on yet another home media format. Perhaps worth a mention in the release section but not on the same level as the original primary release. -- 109.78.205.220 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the film was first released the film went to PVOD (pay video on demand) through Apple, and FandangoNow, which we mention in the Box office section. We don't list them as distributors.

User:Igordebraga added a note about the Neflix release to the release section of the article,[7] which is good (because the intro is supposed to be a summary of what is actually in the article) but it still feels like we're missing something, or we should be doing things slightly differently but I can't quite put my finger on it. -- 109.78.198.202 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VFX

As this film has been nominated by the Academy for its VFX I am attempting to include more information about VFX in the article. Please note that the film credits specify that "Mill Film" were responsible for the VFX. In some of the coverage of the Awards a company called Mr X. has been mentioned, and that is because in 2020 their parent company Technicolor merged Mill Film with Mr X. (see The_Mill_(company)#Ownership).[8] I hope I can make this all a bit clearer. -- 109.78.196.115 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Variety article mentioning the VFX[9] will try to add it later. -- 109.77.209.137 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

indiewire source[10] -- 109.76.145.28 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved Love & Monsters to Love & Monsters (Doctor Who). Per consensus, moved Love & Monsters to Love & Monsters (Doctor Who), Love and Monsters (film) remains at the current title, and create dab. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Monsters (film) → ?
Love & Monsters → ?

– There are two topics called Love and Monsters or Love & Monsters. (I am assuming that the ampersand presentation is too inconsequential to qualify as a distinctive small detail.) The Doctor Who TV episode Love & Monsters is from 2006, and the unrelated film Love and Monsters (film) is from 2020. The pageviews from 7/1/2021 (after the film's peak) to now are here, showing that the film article has a factor of 8 times more pageviews. I don't think it should be disambiguated if the TV episode is not. I think we have a few options:

Option A: Move Love & Monsters to Love & Monsters (Doctor Who) and create a disambiguation page listing both
Option B: Move Love & Monsters to Love & Monsters (Doctor Who), and Love and Monsters (film) to Love and Monsters, with Love & Monsters redirecting to the film article
Option C: Move Love and Monsters (film) to Love and Monsters and have hatnotes on both articles pointing to the other
Option D: Do nothing

What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option A per nom. The safest bet is definitely to have a disambiguation page, which both "Love and Monsters" AND "Love & Monsters" can direct to. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option A per nom. Agree with above comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. 162 etc. (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option A. Most unambiguous option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A as editor who requested a move but was not sure what was ideal. Fine with going with others' stances above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.