Talk:Fifty Shades Darker (film)

Focus Features
Per this source, Focus Features is credited for this film. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a distributor credit. We don't go by a logo on the bottom of a website. There is no credit for Focus in the trailer. Only Universal. The most authoritative source we have now is the trailer. Its beginning only shows Universal, and its billing block at the end again only shows Universal. Unlike with the first film, Focus is not credited. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

... And this source, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one. They acquired the rights to all films and are credited in the primary source on Universal Pictures. You're the one removing sourced content... Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are old sources. Focus may have been involved in acquiring the rights in 2012, but for whatever reason Focus has been left off the credits of the sequel. Universal is the sole distributor. If later posters and trailers include Focus, we can add it in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd like to point out that the primary source, Universal Pictures, credits Focus Features for Fifty Shades Darker. I'd also like to direct you to this source, when the first teaser was released, which Focus Features is credited. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is over a year old. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As well as these sources:, , , . Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * More:, , , , , , . Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are probably using the old credits from the first film. The recently released official full trailer takes precedence. Universal, the primary source, presented the credits in the sequel's official full trailer without any mention of Focus. That was their decision, apparently one they made since the first teaser. If later official posters and trailers include Focus, we can add it in the infobox. Gothicfilm (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh boy... I've presented over 10 sources, including Universal themselves. Universal did in fact credit Focus Features for the sequel as have the sources I've presented. You can't just say no to a change because of "if it's included in the future" when sources say otherwise. It's properly sourced, there should be no problem. Perhaps RfC or Film WikiProject would be options to explore. I don't know. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like also to redirect you to Talk:Finding Dory, where a similar discussion I was apart of took place on whether the film was a spin off. It's same the situation here, sources indicate otherwise. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with official credits. I'm curious - does it give you any pause at all that the primary media for the film we have so far - the official trailer from Universal, which includes a billing block - makes no mention of Focus? Don't you think if Focus was still the distributor, it would be contractually required to be there, like it was with the first film? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not very familiar with how distributors function, frankly. However, again, Universal credits them on their website and haven't removed it. I don't know if there was some change to the contract, but Focus Features acquired the rights to all films produced, they are apart of the franchise regardless. If they really weren't part of the film series at all, Focus Features wouldn't be credited on Universal's website. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd more than open to include it, again with Universal crediting them per the source, until a source states they do not own rights anymore or it is truly evident that they aren't apart of the film series after a few months or after more posters and trailers are released. The first movie poster doesn't credit anyone. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. They are most concerned about official credits in the film and the trailer. The website is their least concern. A logo on the bottom of a website does not overrule their clear decision in the official trailer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on what policy? Never have I encountered such "rules". Again, a primary source is just as reliable as the trailer. It states it, again. I am repeating myself at this point. Universal Pictures credits Focus Features on their website. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  01:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. To repeat myself, that is not a distributor credit, it's a logo on the bottom of a webpage. As you said yourself, you not very familiar with how distributors function. Then you claim a primary source is just as reliable as the trailer - first that depends on what it is, and second, how do you overlook that the official trailer itself is a primary source? And your source is not even the official website - though it has a link to it (also seen on the bottom of the WP page), which takes us here - the actual official website. And if you scroll to the bottom, you'll notice that like the official trailer, it only mentions Universal. Nothing about Focus. So I'm asking you to please stop taking up time with this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, no. You are allowed to explain your side, even though it wasn't based on any policy, but you are not allowed to tell me to stop engaging in the discussion. Have you heard of WP:CONSENSUS? I will ask for Wikiproject Film members to participate in the discussion because we are both hitting walls. Next time, if a user raises an issue, do not tell them to "stop taking up time with" it. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  10:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to source the most recent trailer for identifying the companies involved. While an official website can be a good source, a website is not as curated as a trailer would be. The first film's trailer said, "Universal Pictures and Focus Features present..." while the second film's trailer just says, "Universal Pictures presents..." Something changed in regards to Focus's involvement. We don't know what yet, and we can be on a lookout for sources about that. Another source to look for is the official poster for the second film, which will have a billing block at the bottom. We should expect it to say the same thing as the second trailer. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But am I the only one that finds it odd that they are credited on the Universal Pictures' website? Like I get that the most recently updated material is the trailer, but to credit them on a website (which hasn't been removed) and not on the trailer is in fact odd. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  11:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat odd, but I think it is an oversight. When I say "curated", I mean that the language is likely legal. For example, this says about film posters that a billing block's wording is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation". I don't know how trailers and posters compare, but their language seems similar in nature. The official poster would help confirm this. The website has no such language involved. It might be that a nudge to the webmaster will result in an updating of the images. Maybe one of us can try? :-P Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now this is a much better response. Thank you for that, Erik. I have no experience in this kind of field and I am certain I am the last person to contact the webmaster for many reasons. Perhaps you could? It would help clarify the issue with Focus Features. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  12:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Variety Insight and Box Office Mojo both say that Universal is the sole distributor. I'd go with that.  Varietys Insight database is a good source for information on upcoming Hollywood films.  For British films, you could try Screen Internationals Screenbase.  The biggest problem is that commercial databases like Screenbase, Variety Insight, and Baseline are expensive to access and stingy with their free data.  They're usually correct and up-to-date, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never known about those sources. Screenbase has nothing on Fifty Shades Darker, sadly. After reviewing Variety Insight, the credit could be about the production company, given that Variety has Focus Features as a production company? I don't know. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the first poster does in fact have credits. It was just so small and grey that I missed it completely. I can't read what's written next to Universal's logo. It's even smaller and impossible to read. Probably just "The film is not it yet rated". Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of an actual billing block, but I think it is worth comparing this sequel's teaser poster to the first film's. It shows only Universal where the previous ones show both Universal and Focus; see here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I know what you meant by billing block. I don't think the previous posters had one indicating director, writer, producers, based on, etc. if I am not mistaken. The most recent one has this small logo right next to Universal that's very small, you just have to zoom in. Regardless, it would still be possible for you to contact the webmaster or whomever? It's still odd that FF is mentioned on Universal's website but not elsewhere. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  19:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I emailed the email addresses that came up in the whois record for that web page's domain. Also, worth noting that the bottom of the official website here shows only Universal. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's worth the try. I'm aware of the official website. Gothicfilm pointed it out to me after I checked there as well. It's just to clarify things. It's just all confusing that one contradicts the other and so on. Thanks again for your help! Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Comcast owns both Universal and Focus, the distinction isn't all that major. Focus is now officially on the Universal lot under their banner.  I would definitely list Focus (and/or as Gramercy) as a production company, Gramercy is under Focus.  Depauldem (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not add uncredited companies to the infobox because they're under the umbrella of a studio. That is WP:SYNTH and would add hundreds, possibly thousands of uncredited entries across WP. It would also be inaccurate. Gramercy, for example, is not involved in this film, and, as shown above by its absence from the official credits, neither is Focus. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is true, then why is Michael De Luca Productions listed? Where are they "credited"?  Certainly not in the trailer. They are, however, "credited" on the Variety Insight database mentioned above, along with Gramercy, Focus and Trigger Street.  And Gramercy is also "credited" by the Director's Guild of Canada as the production company, in addition to the Creative BC (the Vancouver/BC film commission) linked to in the previous comment.  I am not saying Focus, Gramercy or Trigger Street should be listed as distributors, as they are not. But they are production companies and the infobox template calls for listing the company or companies involved. Depauldem (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your last link is not the Director's Guild of Canada. Even if it were, databases do not overrule the film's official billing block, especially when they are preliminary. Credits can change after a film starts shooting, even after it finishes shooting. Michael De Luca is credited at the end of the trailer, in the billing block. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I linked to an International Business Times (a reliable source) that reported about what was, in fact, on the Director's Guild of Canada site. Neither the article or the DGC site are databases. And neither is the Creative BC site.  No one is talking about overruling the billing block in the trailer.  But that billing block is not the end all be all. Plenty of sources list Trigger Street Productions as a production company on the film...and, in effect, even the billing block supports this, as Dana Brunetti is the president of the company.  If the billing block were the only source, then most of the cast listed in the infobox or people like the cinematographer wouldn't be listed under your logic, as they aren't in the billing block.  My point is that there are plenty of reliable sources showing the production companies involved. Just because they don't appear in the trailer doesn't mean you get to prevent them from being listed.  Depauldem (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We use the billing block for positions like cinematographer if they're included on it. If the billing block doesn't list a cinematographer we don't assume there wasn't one. If a company was not contractually listed in the billing block, it does not belong in the infobox. You need WP:CONSENSUS to agree with using your sources to overrule the billing block. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is talking about overruling the billing block. But there is no rule, anywhere, that says only companies that contractually negotiated their inclusion in the billing block (or anywhere else for that matter) can be included.  A company or person can still be credited even though their name is not in the billing block, case in point the cinematographer.  Beyond the very narrow and extremely limited billing block, there are many reliable sources that supplement (i.e. they do not overrule) the billing block. Depauldem (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The case of the cinematographer is entirely different. No one is overruling the credits to include him. But the billing block lists certain companies and not others. You want to overrule it to add more. Again, get WP:CONSENSUS. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I cant overrule a rule that does not even exist. So no, I don't need consensus.  Once again, can you provide any support (like a link to a wikipedia page with this rule) that backs up your contention that only companies listed on your preferred "billing block" can be used?  If you can't point to actual policy, you have no standing to block valid edits based on multiple reliable sources.  Depauldem (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When an addition is disputed, you need consensus. Read WP:CONSENSUS, as well as the posts above from Erik and NinjaRobotPirate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I haven't made a single addition on the article page, so there is no addition in dispute. I merely suggested adding information to the production company section, based on multiple reliable sources that confirm the addition.  In fact, one of those sources (Variety insight) was the one suggested by NinjaRobotPirate.  And let's not forget about User:Callmemirela, who supported adding in Focus, though admittedly in the wrong section.  I ask again, CAN YOU CITE ANY POLICY THAT LIMITS INFORMATION TO ONLY THE BILLING BLOCK.  If there are reliable sources that you can't refute based on actual policy, then there is no dispute.  You are just wrong. Depauldem (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY, sometimes tertiary sources, such as databases, can help give an idea of how much weight to put on individual sources when they contradict each other, especially when you've got primary and secondary sources that conflict. I guess a lot of it is left to editor discretion, though. One possibility is to list all the credited companies in the article body but reserve the infobox to just the ones in the billing block. Maybe that would be a decent compromise? I do stuff like that sometimes if I think the infobox is getting too cluttered. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Focus is already mentioned in the article body, regarding the first film. But it was specifically not credited by Universal in the official trailer for the second film. The tertiary sources others have pointed to are a year or more old, before Universal removed all mention of Focus from the current credits, including on the official website, as explained above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we don't have conflicting sources. Yes, the poster lists what it lists, but this does not contradict the other sources (are there are many, both primary and secondary). I am not disputing the poster billing block.  But the poster billing block is not, in any way shape or form, evidence that the other sources listing other companies are somehow false.  A conflicting source would be one that acutely refutes another source. The poster is not that. But I would be fine with listing Focus, Trigger Street etc. in the body of the article for this film and the third, as the sources confirm this. I like your compromise talk Depauldem (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources rarely set out to prove a negative. The new trailer and website are not going to announce that they are removing a credit - that is self-evident by the fact that the credit is not there. Those other year + older tertiary sources are out of date. The primary media for the film we have so far - the recently released official trailer from Universal, which includes a billing block - makes no mention of Focus. Neither does the official website. If Focus was still intended to be listed as a production company or a distributor, it would be contractually required to be credited on the official trailer, like it was with the first film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Contractually required to be credited in the trailer? You have no idea what you are talking about.  Once more, do you have any link to any authority that confirms yet another one of your unsupported claims?? Were you part of the contract negotiations for who and what is in the billing block for a trailer on this film?? And are you just not reading what I have been saying??  No, Focus is NOT a distributor.  I never said it was.  In fact, I made it clear that I, like you, agreed that it was not a distributor.  None of the sources I linked to is over a year old.  Some are from over the summer and both Variety Insight and StudioSystem are updated continuously.  Regardless, what WP rule do you have that says an old source is invalid merely because of its age? Just because a credit is not in the trailer does not mean its not still credited elsewhere (as is the case here).  Hell, the trailers I saw don't list any cast members in the block, so are we prevented from listing them as well??  Of course not, because the trailer billing info is not the end all be all. Depauldem (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already answered that with my point about cinematographers above. I don't believe Variety Insight and StudioSystem are updating the credits for every film they list continuously. Credits do change before a film is released. I've seen it many times. So the age of a source is important. And as Erik said above, I mean that the language is likely legal. For example, this says about film posters that a billing block's wording is "the product of detailed legal agreements and intense contract negotiation". I don't know how trailers and posters compare, but their language seems similar in nature. The official poster would help confirm this. I agree with that. Once released, if the poster or the film itself does include Focus, I will put Focus in the infobox myself. But it's not likely the poster will be different than the official trailer. Until it is Focus should not be credited for the second film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And by answering it you confirmed the point I am making: just because a credit is not listed on a poster or trailer does not mean its not credited elsewhere. I am sorry you don't "believe" Variety Insight and Studio System don't update continuously, but as subscriber to both of their expensive services, I guarantee you they do. Your legal speculation is just that, speculation. Posters and trailers will usually contain some billing, but that's it.   Some, not all.  It would be impossible to get all of the credited players (companies or otherwise) onto the poster, which tend to limit themselves to the top billing.  Are you really going to argue against adding Trigger Street Productions when its president is listed in your cherished trailer? I know you feel Focus should not be credited, but there are multiple reliable sources that say it is.  Hell, here is an article from E! just a couple of weeks ago that mentions both it (E Online) and Focus Features are both owned by NBCUniversal.  Are you really going to argue against a very recent article written by a journalist who works under Universal??  Why would they put a disclaimer for Focus Features in an article about Fifty Shades Darker if the company had zero involvement?? I have provided many many sources for my claims, you have relied on an argument of "nuh uh".  I agree with the compromise position that NinjaRobotPirate laid out above.  And I suspect Callmemirela does as well.  Are you opposed to this apparent consensus? Depauldem (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not consensus. Per Erik, I think it is appropriate to source the most recent trailer for identifying the companies involved. While an official website can be a good source, a website is not as curated as a trailer would be. The first film's trailer said, "Universal Pictures and Focus Features present..." while the second film's trailer just says, "Universal Pictures presents..." Something changed in regards to Focus's involvement. We don't know what yet, and we can be on a lookout for sources about that. Another source to look for is the official poster for the second film, which will have a billing block at the bottom. We should expect it to say the same thing as the second trailer. I agree with that. And no, we don't list uncredited companies like Trigger Street Productions because one of the credited producers is involved with that company. That would be WP:SYNTH. The company itself has to be credited. Like with Focus, the most recent official trailer shows that the decision was made to leave that company off the credits for the second film. If they're included in the official poster, I'll add them in the infobox and/or article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, what's not consensus is your ridiculous rule that only things listed on the poster or trailer can be in the credits. This is nothing more than a made up rule by you.  You have zero authority to support such a rule and have zero ground to stand on to try and enforce it. It flouts the very notion of using credible secondary sources which, mind you, take priority over primary sources (like posters and trailers).  Trigger Street Productions isn't on the trailers for Fifty Shades of Grey, you going to remove it? And if saying including Trigger Street would be synth even though we have the same producer who is still the president of that company, then what the hell is your reasoning about the new trailers not listing something must mean the credits are now changed?  Sounds like synth to me.  You are making a leap based on your own reasoning.  If I can't do it, then neither can you.  Let's wait for Erik to weigh in.  For all you know, he will also be on board with Ninja's compromise. Please stop taking his words out of context as some sort of proof you are correct. Depauldem (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not take his words out of context, and accusing me of that can be considered WP:UNCIVIL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not had my coffee yet, so bear with me here. The issue is what to have under "Production company", correct? Gothicfilm, you're including Michael De Luca Productions because Michael De Luca is credited in the billing block in the trailer, right? I am not sure if that is a fair connection to make. Is it not possible for a producer involved without their so-called banner being involved as well? As for other possible companies to include, we really are not in a hurry here. We know Universal is involved for sure, and I think we can wait until closer to release for newer sources. For example, if Variety reviews the film in advance, they tend to have a good passage of company details as part of it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, we're not in a hurry. The film is months before release. To be clear, I did not remove Michael De Luca Productions because the billing block gives "Universal Pictures presents A Michael De Luca Production". That's in addition to his producer credit. But there is no mention of Focus or any other company. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then per Erik's point above, if an article came out in Variety listing Focus and/or other production company names, then you would be fine with including them? Even if they are not in the next trailer or posters? Because I think that is the crux of this debate, if we have current reliable sources that give information not included on a poster or a trailer, Gothic is saying they can't be included.  Erik, myself and others are suggesting that other reliable sources can and should be included. Depauldem (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The plot summary of the movie
I'm concerned that children readers might see "fuck" in the plot summary and parents might take offense to that. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've included a hidden note regarding that. In the series, James differentiates fuck and regular sex, which is why I included it as part of the plot. I'd also like to mention that Wikipedia isn't censored. We have articles of that specific word itself and among other things that parents might take offense. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think parents will see it that way and they probably will not care about the specifics of that work. They will not have their children see that word in plot summaries in movie articles and they will be appalled if that happens. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia isn't censored. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Final gross
Barring any delayed foreign intake, Box Office Mojo lists the final gross of the film to be $378,827,494, which when condensed is "$378.8 million". Some may argue that it should round up to $380 million, but I feel that's disingenuous and a bit misleading, because it brings the film up to a whole other bracket of gross and very few pages don't just put the actual amount. TropicAces (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Precision to 4sf is 378.8, while precision to 3sf is 379. I don't care which, but it should be one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)