Jump to content

Talk:Tár

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


Reception Box Office

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Nardog

Hello.

You reverted an edit I made, so I thought I’d make a case for it here. Both “justified” and “justify” are used in the New York Times quote. This use does not read as effective repetition, but as simply redundant sentence structure. Additionally, the word “speculate" is more accurate than “argue,” as it pertains to the budget of this film. No reporter, in this case Brooks Barnes, is ever supplied with marketing costs. The only costs ever supplied to anyone are the total production costs (including post). As is customary, this number ($25 million) was supplied to trade journalists. The intention of Barnes arguing against the spend is served later with "failed to find an audience big enough to justify their costs".

Thank you for your consideration Pandanotincluded (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular preference regarding the wording, but at any rate IMDb is unacceptable as a source per WP:IMDB. If I click "Edit" next to "Box office" on the IMDb page for the film, I'm given an interface for editing the budget. I don't know it will be approved if I submit an edit, but the fact I can try means the budget was user-submitted. It might have been contributed by someone privy to the production, but we have no way of knowing if it was. That's why IMDb is useless as a source except for US ratings given by the MPA and writing credits given by the WGA. Nardog (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Box Office Mojo only publishes studio-verified budget numbers, they do not publish user-submitted budgets for studio films. Pandanotincluded (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it does not have a budget for Tár. Nardog (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed, but you have to be a pro subscriber. Pandanotincluded (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no particular preference regarding the wording, are you okay with the following?
The New York Times speculated that the film "cost at least $35 million, including marketing," and that Tár, and similar highbrow films from established filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson's Licorice Pizza, Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley, and Steven Spielberg's The Fabelmans, "failed to find an audience big enough to justify their costs". However, Tár performed stronger than expected overseas, taking in 78% of its overall box office. Pandanotincluded (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nardog (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say that the NYT "speculated" this amount, since the source doesn't say it's speculation. It just states it. Popcornfud (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT reporter is not reporting a fact, these are numbers afterall, and uses wording that is implicitly speculative — “at least.” He is clearly guessing. Pandanotincluded (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source says:
“Tár” cost at least $35 million, including marketing; ticket sales total $5.3 million.
The source doesn't indicate where it got this number from. It just states that number. It's therefore entirely neutral and correct to say that the source reported that Tar cost at least $35 million. To say this is speculated is to project our own guesswork onto the source. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the source states “at least,” which is nebulous. This is not reporting an accounting statement, as there is no known total stated and consequentially speculation on what that total might be. Brooks Barnes is pulling this out of the air. He quotes no one on the studio side or anyone else. Pandanotincluded (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with me that the source says that the film cost at least $35 million? Popcornfud (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Brooks Barnes wrote that “the film cost at least $35 million.” Do you agree that “cost at least” is implicity a guess with no certain destination? Barnes is speculating on this title as oppossed to later in the piece where in regard to The Fablemans he states with certainty that "Its budget was $40 million, not including marketing." Pandanotincluded (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Brooks Barnes wrote that “the film cost at least $35 million.” Great — then we can say that Barnes wrote that the film cost at least $35 million. End of story. Popcornfud (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question, please answer mine. Pandanotincluded (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don’t agree that the source is implicitly a guess. You have no way of knowing where the source got the info from, and it doesn’t matter to Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the conjecture of the reporter, who names no exact number and no source for his guess, is enough for Wikipedia to decide that this is not speculation. Pandanotincluded (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And do you know for sure it's not taken from IMDb? For example, I see "$245,000,000" listed as the budget on the BOM page for The Force Awakens, which is different from the $533,000,000 I get when I try to edit the budget on IMDb. Do you know why the budget for The Force Awakens is available without subscribing and the one for Tár isn't? Can you find a movie for which the budget is available for IMDbPro subscribers on BOM but IMDb gives a different, or no, figure? Nardog (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Complete Unknown lists $65 million as its’ production budget on imdb pro, but not on the unsubscribed version of BOM. This is typical of studio films today. The Force Awakens was released nearly ten years ago. If you look it up using imdb pro, the budget listed is $245,000,000 beacuse BOM supplies all data to imdb pro. The non subscriber version of imdb is junk, and as you say, “information” is user submitted, and unreliable. Pandanotincluded (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
$65 million is on the free version of IMDb. Clicking "Edit" reveals it is indeed in the user-generated database. I doubt IMDbPro is pulling from a different source than IMDb. Nardog (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB Pro runs BOM and receives their budget numbers directly from the studios. The free version aligning with the Pro version does happen, but only if no one tries to input their own number into the consumer version. So in this case yes, A Complete Unknown lists the same budget number. However, if you edit that budhet number in the consumer version, it will not carry over to imdbPro or BOM. Pandanotincluded (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? How do you know the $25m figure came from BOM and not IMDb? Nardog (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I work in the industry and have colleagues at both imdbPro and its’ same-owned sibling BOM. They operate in lockstep, but have nothing to do with the consumer version of imdb when it comes to budget numbers. Clearly, this anomaly is confusing and counterproductive generally and specifically as it pertains to trusting reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. Pandanotincluded (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell them to release the non-user-submitted budgets on BOM like they used to, or at least make it clear to every subscriber where they got them. Nardog (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already in the works. Pandanotincluded (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tár&oldid=1266612312"