Talk:Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

old request

Hello, could someone link this page to the French one ? I don't manage to do it.

Trailer and characters

I saw all the teasers and trailers of this film, but never managed to see the Shingouz... Anyone can confirm they really appear, as mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.19.153.104 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Shingouz appear :) --Alfe (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Countries and Budget

Hollywood Reporter, AllMovie and Variety, among others, all cite this as a US-France joint, so that point should be resolved. As far as the budget goes, every one of Besson's other films on Wikipedia are written in USD, and $180M is the most given figure, so it should be the one listed. Thoughts? TropicAces (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the nationality (no opinion about the currency). UniFrance, which is not a scientific institute but an organization for promoting French movies, cannot be considered as the only source. As a Frenchman myself, I often notice that this kind of movie is described as French in my country and as French-something in other countries... Maybe France has its own rules to determine the nationality of a movie? I favor mentioning both countries with relevant sources. Seudo (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

{{infobox film}} says weight should be given to trade magazines, such as Variety and Screen International. Both call it a French-American co-production. The weight of sources does seem to favor calling it a co-production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Seudo NinjaRobotPirate we'll have to see what (if any) the outcome of the temporary protection and investigation are but guess we're at an agreement to list both US and France? And Ninja (and Seudo, if you feel like chipping in your two cents) what are infobox rules as far as budget goes? I know typically it's country of production's currency but (1) if US is a co-producer, (2) all of Besson's other films on here are listed in USD and (3) the gross will almost all but certainly be in $ form, makes sense to use the $180 million figure, correct? (The €197 is outdated from months ago, so we'd need to find a new euro number regardless). A lot to digest and discuss, I'm aware. Never a boring day on Wikipedia... TropicAces (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

I remember there were some discussions about what form of currency to use in budgets and grosses at WikiProject Film, but I'm not sure there was ever really any strong consensus on what to do about it when there's a dispute. I remember one discussion was resolved when it was pointed out that you can link to a Box Office Mojo page that uses local currency. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Obviously you found an article by Hollywwod reporter and Variety that mention the US. Ohters (hundreds, in English and all languages) are very clear : it's a French film, produced by EuropaCorp and moreover independently. If you take just a few seconds to make a research, you'll see all media write it is a French film. There is absolutely no reason for this film to be considered as a joint venture or co-production with any other country. The rule is where is located the production company. For example, The Minion and Despicable me are made in France, but are American films because the producer is an American studio. All movie is not a reliable source as anyone can edit it and is linked to IMDB (the same). Unifrance is not the only source but the most offical as they are linked to the Ministry of Culture and have all the accounting documents. And if you look at the article indicated in the CNC (which owns Unifrance) report (but it's in French of course), they detail very accurately how the film is financed and all the numbers. Sincerely... We have the same problem with other EuropaCorp's films shot with English-speaking actors (in order to ease sales worldwide). On wikipedia, some people were doing war editing to write that Taken or Lucy were American films or coproductions. The same with The little prince.

Indeed, $180 million is a figure that we see in many articles... in US publications mainly. But the conversion rate changes all the time. That's why I think the budget in the currency that was used is better, and we can add the equivalent in other currencies but it changes. €197 is not oudated, it's just that the budget doesn't change once the film has been made. And we have enough recent articles indicated this amount. Herve.toullec (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

AllMovie is not user-editable like the IMDb. Also, we don't base a film's nationality on the production companies; we report what reliable sources say. What we've seen so far is that they label it as an international co-production, not a French-only film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You can submit corrections to Allmovie via their website. No, the sources that were listed on the wiki pages for months always wrote it is not a co-production. Until TropicAces decided to write it is and indicated sources containing mistakes, and deleted my corrections without trying to look closer. The only criteria taken into account in ALL wiki pages and technical documents in cinema is the nationality of the production companies as they own the films (otherwise Despicable me would be considered as a French film for instance). For Valerian, there is one : EuropaCorp, the studio created by Besson. Writing on Wikipedia that the films is a US-France makes no sense and is a lie. If you don't see it is a 100 % French-produced film, it means you don't want to see and I'm sad about that. When you edit articles on Wikipedia, it is to write true informations. And then journalists go to Wikipedia and spread false informations...

Luc Besson himself says it in this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV7cQzBwsq0 "Definitely, Valerian is not American" at 00:38 I can list every newspaper and site of reference : http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=237821.html http://www.programme-tv.net/news/cinema/113928-valerian-de-luc-besson-devient-le-film-francais-le-plus-cher-de-l-histoire/ http://www.20minutes.fr/cinema/2047919-20170411-valerian-luc-besson-explose-record-film-francais-plus-cher http://www.lefigaro.fr/cinema/2016/06/14/03002-20160614ARTFIG00237-luc-besson-valerian-le-film-francais-le-plus-cher-de-tous-les-temps.php http://www.vanityfair.fr/monde-de-vf/articles/-valerian-et-la-cite-des-mille-planetes-est-le-film-francais-le-plus-cher-de-lhistoire-du-cinema/52080 http://www.lepoint.fr/pop-culture/cinema/luc-besson-valerian-va-autoriser-de-jeunes-francais-a-rever-15-07-2017-2143430_2923.php

And here again with ALL DETAILS about the €197 million budget, with pieces and photos of intern documents used by the production : http://bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/entreprise/valerian-rapportera-4-fois-plus-a-luc-besson-qu-a-toutes-ses-stars-948692.html

We have to rely on primary sources and not articles that just recycle other press articles without investigations. And we just have to look at the credits in the trailers. Sincerely, I just don't understand what is happening here. Herve.toullec (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reported to Screen Daily the error in the article : http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/valerian-and-the-city-of-a-thousand-planets-review/5119818.article They immediately recognized there was a mistake, as they had listed STX Entertainment as a production company wheareas it is the US distributor. Herve.toullec (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel your (at times passive, at times otherwise) aggressive attitude towards this isn't helping your cause. Established industry publications list the film as a co-production, and the consensus among editors on this site seems to be to list America. Obviously this upsets you but at the end of the day it's about what the majority and sources agree upon, not what one individual and their selective fringe sites say... TropicAces (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you watch the interview of Besson I put up here ? Are these famous newspapers and specialized magazines I listed "selective fringe sites" ? I am upset by such ignorance. All established cinema publications and media say it is a French production. You still don't give what US company or studio was, according to you, involved in the makking of this film. I won't be the one who writes fake informations on Wikipedia... It is a serious problem if people who write on pages about films don't know what a co-production is. - "most expensive French production in film history" : http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-valerian-thousand-planets-reviews-20170720-story.html - "most expensive non American film ever made" : https://qz.com/1033865/valerian-luc-bessons-sci-fi-epic-is-the-most-expensive-non-american-film-ever-made/ - "France's most expensive film ever" http://theplaylist.net/valerian-city-thousand-planets-frances-expensive-film-ever-20170410/ - "Production country : France" : http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Valerian-and-the-City-of-a-Thousand-Planets-(France)#tab=summary - "Valerian is a 100 percent French production" : http://screenrant.com/valerian-most-expensive-film-production-france-history/ Herve.toullec (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank for posting sources, but please stop making assumptions of bad faith. Some of those could be taken to say that the film is not an international co-production, and yet we have others that do say it is an international co-production. I will alert WikiProject Film to this debate, and maybe we can come to some kind of consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides, TopicAces mentioned Hollywood Reporter at the beginning of this discussion, but the latest article in that magazine actually mentions Valerian as a French import. The production is certainly not international. This is proven by articles such as this one (in French) which shows an official document that lists separately the French production companies (Valerian SAS and TF1 Films Production) and the foreign production companies (none), which is also what is written on the posters. Some sources, such as Allmovie, say the "country" is "France-USA" (what does it mean?), but this website doesn't even mention EuropaCorp or Valerian SAS as production companies. And the more research I do, the more sources I find that describe Valerian as a French movie, including in US sources (e.g. NY Times). So I might change my mind compared to what I said above... Seudo (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

For every source that says it is purely French, it seems there is another (sometimes apparently the very publication) that says the film is a co-production among France and US. I feel we can't assume that these sources are giving out blanket statements and themselves assuming the US was involved, so the "safe" thing is to list the US, although it does seem it's a toss up/crap shoot at this point; really just comes down to who do you believe TropicAces (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Part of the reason we rely on secondary sources is because editors are not well-placed to determine the nationality of a film. I usually rely on a combination of the AFI, BFI and LUMIERE databases for this kind of information but none of these resources have Valerian listed as yet. It may be worth incuding the US for now with a note until more authoritative resources have the film listed. As for the currency issue the New York Times reports that "To help finance Valerian, Fundamental Films, a Chinese company, acquired a large stake in Mr. Besson’s EuropaCorp production company." This does make it sound like Valerian was funded by Europa, so the budget would almost certainly have been in euros. I think this being the case the budget should be given in euros and the dollar equivalent in brackets afterwards because the dollar version of the budget will fluctuate along with the currency exchange rates (see Paddington_(film) for an example of a similar approach). Betty Logan (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course the budget was defined in euros since it's a French production (although EuropaCorp took money in many countries: France, Qatar, US, China, Belgium...). The budget has even been published on Youscribe. But if this Wikipedia wants to use US dollars because the readers know them better than euros, I have no objection. Seudo (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, one person puts "USA" on IMDB as a country of production with France, by ignorance, thinking that such a sci-fi film, shot in English, must be American. Then there are journalists looking for information who go see IMDB and they spread it in articles. This is what happens. I contacted the author of the Variety article and he answered to me how he did : "I think I pulled that from IMDb". Simply. 99 % of what you can consider as source and doesn't contain mistakes clearly indicates that the film is 100 % French produced. EuropaCorp is a production company. A production company gathers a budget to make a film it owns. The money comes from everywhere, and in the case of Valerian, from presales around the world. That's why several countries/financers invested in it, like Fundamental films, Belga films, Gulf Films. Then EuropaCorp decides everything, the film is its property. This is how film production works. At the end of this article from BFMTV (main news channel in France), you can see the copy of a 20 page long document detailing the prevsionnal budget (most accurate figure we have so far) : 197 471 677 €. http://bfmbusiness.bfmtv.com/entreprise/valerian-rapportera-4-fois-plus-a-luc-besson-qu-a-toutes-ses-stars-948692.html Thank you NinjaRobotPirate for alerting the Wikiproject Film as I don't know how to do that myself. By the way I don't want to be agressive towards anyone but English is not my mother tongue and the way I write can seem brutal sometimes and I apology for that. I don't want to make assumptions of bad faith but you can guess my disarray in this situation. I helped create and enrich this wiki page with informations I'm sure about. Presenting this films as having a US origin is a huge technical, and intellectual property against-truth. I said it : we had the same problem with films like Taken, Lucy, The Little Prince, 100% French but shot in English to facilitate worldwide sales. TropicAces qualified as "fringe" sources that are among the most famous an established media in France and in the world. I can understand you did not know Unifrance before, but you can be sure it is the most authoritarian source you can expect (with an English version moreover). Herve.toullec (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, It seems strange to have a dollar budget range starting from 177 000 000. € 197 000 000 rather represent something like $ 220 000 000. " With a budget of € 197.47m according to the 2016 balance sheet of French cinema production published by the CNC..." http://cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=newsdetail&l=fr&did=326848 In a few months we will probably know the final amount of money spent, which must have been lowered from the initial budget. Herve.toullec (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

€197.47m converts to $209 million. The $177–180 million figure is the net budget after deducting the tax subsidy, which we include on all articles. Unfortunately we don't have the euro figure for the net budget. This is all explained in the section at the bottom of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Worthy NYT (19 July 2017) reference?

The "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" article seems to be "fully protected" at the moment - nonetheless, the following reference ( ‘Valerian’ Is France’s Most Expensive Film Ever. Luc Besson Says ‘Who Cares? ), published recently in the New York Times (19 July 2017), may be a worthy addition? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Valerian actually needs $400 million to break even.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/19/valerian-sci-fi-gambles/487442001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.120.51 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Based On Which Volume's Plot?

Despite the title mentioning "Thousand Planets" the movie isn't very much related to the volume "Empire of a Thousand Planets". The main plot (the part in space station Alpha with the old race coming from a lush island planet) is more or less the plot from "Ambassador of the Shadows". Does anybody know if there is a volume which can be called the origin of the introductory adventure (the market in the "other dimension")? --Alfe (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Besson said the film is based on "Ambassador of the Shadows" but he had to enrich the script by new elements he imagined. And I guess that the City of a thousand planets is a way to intriduce the whole universe to the public and setting things in case there are new movies to come in a cinema franchise. Herve.toullec (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This one is obviously the story the movie is based on. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ambassador_of_the_Shadows Lots of the elements are there but altered. How about a section or separate article on the differences between the original story and the movie? Bizzybody (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Trivia? Holocaust?

in the final sceene, where the General is confronted, I find the reference to "6 millions killed" and his optical representation (with the disguised swastika on the breast plate) and the complete speech like an reference to the killing in WWII and the rescue (and the massive hinderance by some states to help the jews to immigrate). Is this my POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:5C:8F1E:2F00:D0BE:97EA:30D4:45A8 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Budget and original research

There are currently two figures being used for the budget: the original budget as given in euros (€197 million) and a dollar figure ($177–210 million). All figures are sourced. I do not not dispute the euro figure but it is wrong for editors to remove the sourced dollar equivalents and replace them with WP:original research as Athos Magnus keeps doing here. The conversion rate between dollars and euros is not constant and changes on a daily basis, so what may be a correct conversion today does not necessarily represent a correct conversion when the film was made.

For example, IMDB states that filming took place in the first half of 2016, which is obviously the period when the bulk of the budget was spent. According to XE.com, €1 fluctuated between $1.07 and $1.12 during this period which translates to $210–220 million, so the sourced figure while slightly off is actually closer than the OR figure that Athos Magnus keeps adding, at least throughout this period. In fact, from the point filming started up to the time of its release it would have been impossible for €197 million to convert to $230 million or more. There would also have been some post-production work at the tail-end of 2016 and perhaps in early 2017 when the conversion rate dropped to $1.05 per euro (€197 million translates to $205 million using this rate). While I agree the lower bound in the sourced estimate appears to be too low the upper-bound of the estimate seems to be in the right ballpark i.e. $210 million.

Please do not make assumptions. This is WP:Original research which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policies, and this is a prime example of why those policies exist and why we require secondary sourcing. If we could find a more accurate sourced dollar figure (it seems very unlikely that Valerian could have a dollar budget less than $200 million over the period it was made unless the euro figure is incorrect) then I think that would be an improvement on what we currently have, but bunging in a load of original research is the wrong way to fix the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: This Box Office Mojo article states that the overall budget was €197 million which translates to $209 million (which ties in with the XE.com conversion figures I mention above). However, the lower figures seems to come from deducting tax subsidies which takes the final figure "closer to $150 million". Now, we always include the gross and net budget in films about Hollywood films (such as at The Dark Knight Rises) so I see no reason for not doing that at this article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Further edits

There have been further edits, this time by TropicAces, reverting the corrections I made last evening. Now, editors are entitled to revert me per WP:BRD, but if you do so you have an obligation to also discuss your rationale. A simple edit summary "not correct" does not actually rebuff any of my arguments above, unless you stipulate which part of my reasoning is incorrect. I am wondering if any of you guys have actually read the sources in the infobox?? None of the dollar sources in the article actually give the figure $210 million. The three figures given are $177.2 million [1], $180 million [2] and $209 million [3]. Now let's take a closer look at how those figures materialize:

1. The film was financed by a French studio in euros and we know the exact euro figure for this: €197.47 million [4]
2. During the filming, you can see from XE.com that over the first half of 2016 when the movie was filmed [5], €197.47 million cannot convert to any less than $212 million, and no more than $228 million. From the start of filiming up to release the range is $205–228 million. Therefore it is impossible for €197.47 million to lie outside $205–228 million during any of the production period.
3. In this Box Office Mojo article, BOM put the euro cost at €197.47 million and convert that to $209 million. This is within the possible $205–228 million range.
4. Other figures that have been mooted are $177.2 million [6] and $180 million (several articles). It is highly likely these two numbers are the same figure, but just rounded.
5. Where does the discrepancy between the $180 million figure and $209 million figures come from? Well, Box Office Mojo in this article explains that "..."Valerian and Laureline" by Pierre Christin and Jean-Claude Mézières and is the most expensive French production ever, coming in at 197.47€* ($209m USD). The net budget for Valerian, however, is closer to $150 million of which an impressive 90% has been covered with foreign pre-sales, equity financing and tax subsidies." Obviously at that time Box Office Mojo didn't have an exact figure for the net budget, but it is pretty obvious that the $180 million budget estimates are actually the net cost after taking into account the tax subsidies. We know this is true because we know what the cost was in euros before subsidies are deducted, and that it is impossible for the gross figure to be under $205 million.

If you disagree with my reasoning and are determined to revert me will you at least do me the courtesy of explaining your reasoning here as I have done. It would be greaty appreciated. This is not about winning it is about making sure the data is correct and it is interpreted correctly in the article. I appreciate that the currency conversions make this complicated but we need to work together on this and get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great summary. I would just add that BOM doesn't have a practice of listing the net or the gross budget. Sometimes they will list what happens to be the net budget and sometimes they list the gross. Most of the budgets they list, however, are just estimates they glean from early articles in the trades. I have never seen BOM update an older budget, even for films where the final cost (be it net or gross) was subsequently confirmed. In fact, given the total lack of transparency on where they got their information, I am amazed it is relied upon as a reliable source, at least for budget purposes. Foodles42 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed this especially in the case of Disney films produced in the UK: using a FOI request some journalists have obtained exact budgets (audited by HMRC) and yet Box Office Mojo retain the older estimates and editors repeatedly restore the out-of-date numbers. There is a tendency to treat BOM figures as if they come on stone tablets or something. It is a very useful site but primarily it is a box office tracker. Film financials are generally very speculative so unless we are sure they are audited then we should be very open-minded about what the true figure actually is. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the ranges and/or the net & gross. Foodles42 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

‘Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets’ Europa-Park Rollercoaster

Should a section be written about the Valerian virtual reality experience coaster being built in Europa-park.

http://presse.europapark.com/en/presse/nachricht/datum/2018/04/23/auf-eurosat-coastiality-das-weltraum-abenteuer-valerian-die-stadt-der-tausend-planeten-erleben/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdonan (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

bubble's dance

That song strongly, but not 100% convincingly reminds me of Nina Simones "Feeling good". Is there a referable source confirming that? --88.66.13.202 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)