Talk:Dunkirk (2017 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lightoller, Camera, Action.

As discussed above, the character of Mr. Dawson is based on Charles Herbert Lightoller. Anyone who reads an account of Lightoller's actions at Dunkirk will see that. We have a source, the European Independent Film Festival http://www.ecufilmfestival.com/en/movie-review-dunkirk/, but an "editor" unilaterally dismisses it. We are told that Kenneth Branagh's role is a composite character, but not that Mark Rylance's is a real individual. We are also told that "some events are based on true history (but) the characters and the storyline are fictional". I'm not really sure what that means. Where do we draw the dividing line? But I do know that Dawson's actions in the film are based on true history. What I am curious about is why some especially active "editors" dont want that information to be made available. Hengistmate (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Remake?

@I Have Always Been a Twin: What the hell is this about, Dunkirk being a remake? It is not, and even if there were a loose interpretation in which it could be, it adds nothing productive to the article. Pinging the other editor involved - Crboyer. Cognissonance (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor likely assumes that just because they share the same title and same setting (Operation Dynamo), then that means they're remakes. The two Dunkirks are just as similar to each other as Titanic (1953) and Titanic (1997) were to each other. I have no idea where they get the idea that one of the Dunkirks is set in the present. Crboyer (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Crboyer: Crboyer, The 1958 Dunkirk was set in the present, but was not released until 1958. The 2017 Dunkirk should be set in the present, as well, too, also, but instead, is a period piece set in the summer vacation of 1940 during WW2! - I Have Always Been a Twin. I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@I Have Always Been a Twin: The 1958 Dunkirk was likely filmed in 1957. I'd hardly call 17 years prior "the present". Both films relate to the 1940 event and are set then. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You just want to play Mrs. Olsen with me! I think we need to talk about seventeen. -I Have Always Been a Twin. I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary

An editor just made a BOLD update to the summary section, but it probably doesn't include some information from the earlier section - they should be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Budget: "100 million" or "$100–150 million"?

A lot of back-and-forth edits on the matter recently.

I'm for just "100 million", because as TropicAces put it, "it became known that while the $150 figure was initially used, it was quickly “debunked” and $100 became the universally accepted number".

You can see this in the fact that The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, the two industry publications with insider sources that provide/'leak' film budgets, both changed their numbers from $150 million to $100 million:

• The Hollywood Reporter's Ms. McClintock wrote on July 20, 2017: "Dunkirk reportedly cost $150 million or more to make, although sources at Warners say that figure is too high." (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dunkirk-box-office-can-christopher-nolans-war-epic-battle-past-40m-us-debut-1022695)
• And then three days later, she corrected the number to: "a net production budget of $100 million" (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-dunkirk-conquers-competition-505m-debut-valerian-bombs-1023700)

• Similarly, Variety's Mr. Kelley wrote on July 19, 2017: "a production with a speculated $150 million budget" (http://variety.com/2017/film/news/dunkirk-box-office-girls-trip-valerian-1202500556/)
• But four days later, he too corrected that number: "The movie’s production budget was reportedly just under $100 million, although earlier reports speculated that it was much higher." (http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-dunkirk-girls-trip-valerian-2-1202503892/)

Also, we have the statement of Ms. Thomas (the producer), who said that Dunkirk "was made for half the amount of money that Interstellar was made for", which I don't think would make sense if it cost something close to $150 million. (http://deadline.com/2018/02/dunkirk-emma-thomas-christopher-nolan-oscars-interview-1202301349/)

Okungnyo (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and support this argument. I’m fully aware of the “Wikipedia infoboxes must include any and all given budgets” however that should be thrown out the window when the most promenent publications in the industry disown a figure and announce it as incorrect. TropicAces (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Ok, Kelley's second article with the earlier reports had it much higher language, to me, signals that there is uncertainty. He includes both and cautions that the budget was "reportedly just under $100 million". It's also reportedly $150 million in many other sources who did not later give both numbers or the lower number (sources include Deadline, TheWrap, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, NY Times, Market Watch and many others). McClintock's second article said the "net production budget" was $100 million, meaning the gross production budget (the amount fully spent to make it) was higher. Ms. Thomas' comments about the budget being half of Interstellar isn't helpful, as we don't know what the full budget for it was...all we have are estimates. Further, TropicAces insisted on including a range for Wrinkle in Time to preserve a reported $100 million budget, even though Ava DuVernay said the budget was $130 million. If her words can't defeat a budget range for that film, the case for Thomas' interview is even weaker. Finally, there is the annual report from the Dutch Film Office (the Netherlands was one of the filming locations) that lists the budget at 109 million euros (which is $135 million).

Info box rules are clear on including a range, and the notion that the cited examples are somehow proof they "disowned" or that they announced it as incorrect is ridiculous. Unless they print an actual correction, they didn't disown it and the fact they keep cautioning there are two amounts or that one is a net figure is not them announcing $150 million is incorrect. They don't even use the word incorrect or wrong etc. Finally, the examples cited above do not represent "most prominent publications". I gave many more examples supporting $150 than there are with the $100 million, so most publications actually use the higher number. Foodles42 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, infobox rules for budget read: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters). Budget figures can be found at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, etc. If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Emphasis on "approximate budget" and "estimates". That's what virtually all these budgets are. Here we have conflicting estimates, so following the rules, we include a range. Foodles42 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the sources, the rules clearly support using a range. Just put a couple of references, and a sentence or two in the production section.--tronvillain (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's my feeling as well. I will wait a bit to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Foodles42 (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this is a straightforward case so lets's work through this rationally. Lots of reports stated that the budget was $150 million, although Warner initally said this was too high. Some of the more premium sources (Variety and Hollywood Reporter) later explicitly corrected their figures, with both putting it around $100 million, with THR stating this was the "net" budget. I find this to be a compelling argument that the $150 million figure was wrong. But the source I would like to focus on is the Dutch Film Office which gives a very specific figure of €108.59 million. It is not unsual for Film boards in various countries to have the true figures because producers often have to submit the budget to obtain a tax rebate or subsidy. The telling sign that this is a *real" figure rather than an estimate is the precision of the figure. The Film Board could have gone with €109 million, or even €110 million, or perhaps €108.6 million, but instead they went with €108.59 million. I think this figure is the real budget and it is certainly the most authoritative IMO. The question is how do we use it? Well, the dollar equivalent would actually be $110–125 million for the euro to dollar conversion rates in 2016 and early 2017 i.e. when the money was being spent. So throw in a tax incentive which can often be worth up to 20% of the gross budget depending on various factors, it is easy to see how a gross budget of $110–125 million comes down to a net budget of $100 million. I agree with the other editors who think the early $150 million figure is incorrect and I don't think it should be included. The approach I would advocate would be something like this:

  €108.59 million (gross) [1]

  (~$110–125 million) [2]

  $100 million (net) [3]

This would be a similar approach to the one at Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets which faced a similar problem to this one. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of deduction (if not outright original research) for an infobox, when there's already the clear direction to provide a range. If someone was so inclined they could write an entire subsection of the production section going into those details. --tronvillain (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no deduction at all going on. All the guidelines do is clarify how WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRY applies to infobox information. The early sources said the budget was $150 million, but some of those same sources (along with Warner) have stated this earlier estimate was incorrect and have since corrected their earlier figures. We don't leave factually inaccurate data in an article just because we can source it, and it is fairly clear here the $150 million figure has been debunked. Conversely, are there any sources out there arguing the other way that the lower figures are incorrect and the $150 million figure is indeed accurate after all? If this were the case then I would advocate a range that includes the $150 million figure as mandated by the infobox guidelines. What we do have now is two figures: the $100 million figure (which The Hollywood Reporter clarifies as the "net" figure") and one in euros (which equates to $110–125 million; the dollar figure can not fall outside of this range during the production period). We are told all of this by the sources (with no deduction on our part) and the only legitimate question here that I can see is about how we present the information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Betty makes great points, but the fact remains that multiple RS still used the $150 million amount only, including Deadline, TheWrap and LA Times. The other sources that used $150 and then reported $100 still included both amounts (at least one of them did). We would have to infer the were debunking the prior amount...but one could also infer that the fact they still mentioned both numbers is a case for us using the range as well. It seems to me the fact that the other mentioned RS citations used $150 million, and only that amount, would settle this per the infobox rules. We don't cherry pick. When there is a range of numbers, include both. The filming section could be used to make Betty's argument, which is compelling. Foodles42 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been a while with nothing said here. Betty Logan, are you opposed to a range of $100-150 million? In the alternative, are you opposed to a range of $100-$125 million (to account for the NL report)? Given the clear language of the rules, I am inclined to go with the $100-150 million range. But I could also go with the alternative I just gave as well. Foodles42 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose the range on the basis it is still factually correct i.e. €108.59 million will lie somewhere between $100–150 million. I still don't think it is the optimal approach though. The guidelines were conceived to give equal consideration to estimates so that editors would avoid cherry-picking their preferred sources (most often Box Office Mojo), not to put estimates on a level footing with an actual audited figure like we have here. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No argument it's not optimal, but it is the best we have for now. Changing it to include range. Foodles42 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I assembled most of the above and added a "Budget" section, beginning with the €108.59 million.--tronvillain (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence is mangled. I would correct myself but I can't work out what it is supposed to say. Citation 7 appears to be missing too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look. *checks* Ah, had an extra "the" stuck between references. Citation 7 shows up fine for me though.--22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC); edited tronvillain (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A bot has fixed the broken source so all the problems seem to be fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is this "unreadable" or "horribly cited"?

In May 2017, the The Netherlands Film Fund reported a budget of €108.59 million, or $113–125 million at 2016 and early 2017 exchange rates. The budget was estimated to be as high as $150 million in July 2017, with sources at Warner Bros. describing that figure as too high. Later estimates reported "a net production budget of $100 million" and a budget "reportedly just under $100 million, although earlier reports speculated that it was much higher." In a February 2018 interview, the film's producer Emma Thomas stated that "...it was made for half the amount of money that Interstellar was made for, and probably less than half of most of the big summer movies that you could think of are budgeted at."

Now that I look at the whole page, I see that it's mostly using refname with the full citations in the actual reference section instead of relying purely on reflist, so was it about the editable text? --tronvillain (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added your section back as a note. This takes all the sources out of the prose section and adds them to the note section. If this is still not acceptable to Cognissonance I would appreciate it if he came to the talk page and elaborated on the problem. Tronvillain should be willing to to work with him to address any problems he has but he should not have to play guessing games. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Works for me.--tronvillain (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Are you joking? You have no problem with what you just added to a Good Article? The paragraph is written by an amateur, with no regard for punctuation, an overreliance on quotation, and unrefined prose. The sourcing does not adhere to WP:CITEVAR, as no sources were moved down to the Reflist, and all ignore the Use dmy dates template at the top. You didn't even add the note in the right way to conform to how all other notes have been formatted, which I guess you expect me to fix? It is unnecessary to even have the paragraph there. We have the range of "$100–150 million", which is useful information. How we came to that conclusion is not useful information and frankly complicates what is easily simplified. Cognissonance (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you a professional Wikipedian Cognissonance? Neat. Anyway, I prefer DMY dates and try to stay with the established article format (I was just using MDY because that's what they were using in this discussion), and moving references into a reflist isn't a problem - it seems like a citation style designed to discourage editing, but it's already established. If it's to be a note, we can clearly cut things down a little, but to really establish the range verifiably I'd argue it needs at least two citations and perhaps three or four, probably with a little text to clarify.--tronvillain (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC); edited 18:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

>"it needs at least two citations and perhaps three or four"

What led you to those numbers? There are two reliable sources that cover both budget estimates. What you are suggesting, along with "a little text to clarify", is needless. The article is good as is. I'd rather you not edit until you know how. Cognissonance (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Classy. What led me to those number was the entire discussion above, though they're apparently your numbers too given the definitions of "at least" and "perhaps." Looking at Template:Infobox film again I see that it says "Do not use primary sources to corroborate budget figures" so I don't even know why the argument even happened given that you can establish a range with just Box Office Mojo and The Numbers as you have now.--tronvillain (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo and The Numbers are not primary sources, what are you talking about. Cognissonance (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable to provide further context for the budget figures, since the $100–150 million range is very vague and provides no explanation for the huge difference. It seems rather strange to me that you are attempting to keep pertinent information out of the article. All this stuff about citation and note formats is a side issue and is easily addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty huge range. We could switch out quotes for prose to some degree, but I think the Interstellar interview quote is appropriate. --tronvillain (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not pertinent information. It's saying, there being a budget estimate from 100 to 150 million is that there were sources reporting budget estimates from 100 to 150 million. When it comes to "All this stuff about citation and note formats", I prefer that a Good Article is not imbued with bad edits. If editors can't see the difference between good and bad edits, it speaks to their credibility. Cognissonance (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There are no sources in the article saying the film cost $100–150 million. The range is an invention by us to condense the information so it fits into a confined space (i.e. the infobox). The budget was the subject of intense media speculation in several high profile sources, and even the producer of the film discussed the budget. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue: it is entirely reasonable and consistent with standard Wikipedia practices to explain how a composite figure in the infobox breaks down and to summarise the debate as it appeared in reliable sources. After all, this is what we do with the box-office figures which is also a composite figure. If the information was not considered relevant then it would not been covered by several high profile trade publications. Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "It's not pertinent information"? You seem to have written or tweaked most of this article, so you are clearly aware of the level of detail it goes into. Things like "Unable to find an actual dive siren of a Stuka dive bomber, King reverse engineered one from old photographs in an attempt to replicate the sound. For scenes in which ships gave out sounds of people in distress, voices were captured using an ADR "loop group". C-4 and liquid propane were blown up to record sound for the explosions." are "pertinent information" but some details about a fifty million dollar range in the budget aren't?

I actually liked the note Betty added. So did tronvillain. It seems like consensus goes against Cognissonance? Foodles42 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"Greatest War Films" vs "Greatest War Films Ever Made" In the Introductory Section

Can someone explain to me why they keep editing the intro to the less specific "one of the greatest war films." in the critical reception section of the intro? In the CR section proper, it's named as "one of the greatest war films ever made" and the former is clunky, less specific, and almost non-functional as a descriptor. Greatest war films of what? of when? In what category? It's not as though it's not suppported by references/not in other places in the article. Editing now and would like a response before it's changed back either here or on my talk page.BROBAFETT (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)