Talk:Parker (2013 film)/Archive 1

Novel
The film is pretty clearly based on the first Parker novel, The Hunter, not Flashfire, as the article (and the source, Hollywood Reporter), claims. I'm going to find a more accurate source and update it. Euchrid (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you'd think that, but it's an adaptation of Flashfire, for an absolute certainty--Lopez' character Leslie, the setting, the basic set-up--they are from the later novel, not The Hunter. But they have pretty obviously fiddled with the plot to make it more like Payback, which is based on The Hunter, probably because that's the best-known adaptation at present, and the only one that was successful at the box office.  It's not looking like a very faithful adaptation of Flashfire, but that's the book they have the rights to, and the early announcements of the production made that very clear.Xfpisher (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting. I'll admit to not having read Flashfire. Should we change the lede to something more general then, like 'based on the character Parker from the crime novels by Richard Stark'? Euchrid (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, let's change it to reflect the undeniable fact that it's based on Flashfire. Google "Parker, Statham, Flashfire", and see what you get.  It's based on Flashfire.  They bought the rights to adapt Flashfire, and that's what they did--probably not very well, but that's a separate issue. Xfpisher (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello, I have a couple of suggestions. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Can we remove Hackford and Statham's lauding of Lopez from this article? I do not think that it conveys a neutral point of view to quote the people involved with the film praising each other. This is standard promotion and does not add true value to the article.
 * 2) I do not think that there is any value in the "Marketing" section per the guidelines at MOS:FILM. There is nothing that stands out beyond the customary marketing methods. For an example of a working "Marketing" section, see Valkyrie (film).
 * Marketing is promotion (The action or business of promoting and selling products or services). Posters and trailers are used as promotion for the film. The section will eventually be expanded. Also, I don't think a comment from the director about an actor's performance affects the neutrality of the article, but it could do without Statham's comment about Lopez. Hackford was simply explaining that this film marks a departure from her previous roles; that sort of a thing. Ar  re   00:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A marketing section has to have much more encyclopedic value than what it has now. The guidelines say to cover marketing beyond the customary methods that are expected, which are the posters and trailers. As for Hackford's comment, he is the director. He is not going to talk negatively about her and her performance. It should be those independent of the film (the film critics, the audiences) that actually respond to her performance. The reviews can tell us how she did. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The film isn't even out yet, it will be expanded, like I said. If you want to change the title to promotion, go ahead. Hackford's comments are notable for clarifying that the actress in this role marked a departure from her previous roles. Additionally, directors/producers and actors don't always "praise" eachother. Often they might be unhappy with the actor's lack of professionalization or performance. Ar  re   06:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've mad an adjustment by adding information about the release date being pushed back due to Box Office competition it would have faced during its original release date to the marketing section. Ar  re   06:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Gangster Squad opens today, not last October (and the title has slightly changed), I further updated your update. It doesn't seem like the January releases are going to be any less of a problem for Parker (January is jampacked with crime pictures), but we'll see.Xfpisher (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Parker is a bomb, and the article should say so.
It's dead at the box office, and will struggle to reach 18mil domestic, on a Mid-30's budget (and yes, I have a source for that). Overseas has been equally dismal so far. Box Office Mojo called it a bomb, as did Deadline Hollywood. The trades used slightly more polite language to say the same thing. We can debate the language, but the meaning remains the same--this movie was a box office failure. And how it was received at its red carpet opening in Florida, according to a puff piece in a local paper is really quite beside the point. That entire section should be deleted. It's not useful information--of course people said nice things about a movie that was shot in their area. To devote so much space to such a minor event relating to a flop movie seems odd.Xfpisher (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very ignorant in thinking a film that under-grossed is irrelevant and does not deserve available coverage on Wikipedia. The section is about "release"; premieres and stuff like that is apart of its release. This section is not only about its commercial performance. Also, roughly 90% of sources have reported the film's budget to be 30 million; so don't alter that. Ar  re  05:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not remotely saying the film shouldn't be 'covered' on Wikipedia (where did you get that idea?), simply that the purpose of the article isn't to try and put lipstick on a pig. The West Palm Beach opening was a nice gesture to the community, and means absolutely nothing, because people were reacting to the fact that they were getting some kind of gala event in their community (this isn't the rich part of Palm Beach, you understand--those people wouldn't have come at all).  I'm fine with having the event mentioned, and I'll leave in the part about the proceeds going to charity, but using this to try and make it seem like the film was well received, when it clearly was not, simply won't fly.  I don't know what you mean about '90% of sources', btw.  Can I see the other nine, please?  Obviously not all sources are created equal here, and when somebody who was involved in financing, producing, and releasing a movie says in Hollywood's paper of record that the budget was in the Mid-30 million dollar range, right around the time the picture comes out, that means it cost at least that much.  The Numbers was just estimating well in advance of release, and probably any other sources were just using their estimate.  It's outdated information, and I will change it as many times as I have to.  It's a flop movie either way, and this article will reflect that.Xfpisher (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, have you actually SEEN this movie? I note in passing that you are Australian, and it hasn't opened there yet.  I also note that your primary concern seems to be that Jennifer Lopez is in it.  Well, I'm not concerned with that at all.  Put her up for an Oscar, if you want to.  But a flop remains a flop.  Why don't you go edit the page for Gigli?  :)Xfpisher (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to classify the film as being anything. It's still yet to be released in the UK, Australia, France, etc. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm not dealing with the foreign box office yet. But it's been pretty dismal so far, and there's little reason to think the few remaining major markets will change that.  EVERY box office observer of  note has called this movie a flop.  Having done this badly in North America (and really, every foreign market other than Russia, where it did respectable but unremarkable box office and is now quite finished), there's no way it can be perceived as anything other than a flop when all the money is counted.  That's why Box Office Mojo called it a bomb on the first weekend--there was no coming back from that opening, which is why calling it 'modest' is kind of understating the problem.Xfpisher (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that "modest" is an inappropriate term to use. The citation says, "Parker and Movie 43 had terrible debuts," and we should state that. To say "perform modestly" is misleading. I would also excise the Statham ranking; it is too low to be consequential to the article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Erik, why don't you edit it? I'd willingly cede the exact phrasing to you, and if you think the ranking should go, then by all means delete it.  I just wanted to make it clear how badly this movie did--I mean, it's been in theaters a little over a month here, and it grossed about 15k yesterday in all of North America.  That's pretty damn bad.  It's hardly the biggest flop of all time, but it is one of the worst flops Statham has been in.  Not Lopez, to be sure, but I don't really think that's her fault.  It's not really the article's job to explain whose fault it is, but again, a flop is a flop is a flop.  And this is a flop.Xfpisher (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're obviously very vocal in your need to address this as a flop and pig. Ofcourse I've seen this film, I wrote the plot section. As stated by Status, it is too early to deem this a flop overall. No offense, but your edits aren't exactly going well with the flow of the article. That is why I'm trying to wait until the film has come out in all regions to finish off the release section. Then It can be addressed as a flop. I do work on Lopez articles, but her being in the film isn't why I haven't summed it up as a flop yet. Please don't be rude and have some patience! Ar  re  03:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the film got mixed to negative reviews from film critics; however you say it was badly received.... if a movie was awful like Gigli, people would not clap even if it was filmed in their town. Stop reading in between the lines; the fact that the crowd were impressed with the movie means they had a positive reaction with it, although critics did not. Ar  re  03:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arre, when you call another editor 'ignorant' (when you can't prove a single thing he's said wrong), you really don't have any business talking about rudeness. It's really not too early, and the current language (which is not mine) should stand.  In any event, this is an American movie, and a performance this bad in the domestic market makes it a bomb, even if it's a huge hit elsewhere, which thus far it hasn't been.  There's no reason to wait until it's opened in every last territory (last one is in April) to say what's obvious.  It's a bomb.  It's also a picture with a Mid-30's budget, and I'll change that as many times as I have to.  You did not, I notice, list any other of the '90%' of sources you mention.  The Numbers estimate was fine, but now we have something better, and that's what's going to be used.Xfpisher (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the part about the reviews being mixed to negative as it stands--that's fine. But the stuff about the West Palm Beach opening is just too long, and the source is not terribly impressive. It reeks of puffery.  I'll have to keep deleting that.  Accept the compromise.Xfpisher (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Xfpisher, I only referred to your thinking as ignorant. You kinda imply that because the film undeperforms at the US box office, it isn't notable. Telling me to go work on Gigli because all care about is Lopez (untrue) is a little blunt/rude. Also, maybe i used the wrong words. You are in a rush to classify this as a flop. Just wait till we have enough results. Regarding the West Palm Beach line, the source is perfectly fine and i condensed the sentence. All is says is the crowd reacted with positive feedback to the film..is this too sentence too difficult to endure? Also, I have no time to give you a list of 90% of sources, you know very well I meant that as a rough point. Please accept the fact that 30m is the most widely reported figure. "mid 30s" could be anything in the 30s, basically. Just because there is something better, doesn't mean that has to override hundreds of other sources. I'm kindly asking you to consider what I've said. Also, have you failed to see the adjustments I've made? You have your bomb clarification and I have provided multiple sources for the 30m figure (could give you many many more, but I couldn't be bothered). Additionally, please note that films don't always mirror movies, they are just based around them. The valid source said Daniel Parmett. Also, I spoke nothing about altering the reviews (just telling you that reviews and the crowds reaction are two separate deals), so there is no compromise being made here, just your adamant thoughts about the budget being 35m..... Ar  re  12:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Arre, we have enough information now. You are disagreeing with two editors.  The movie is a bomb. If by some miracle it does huge box office in the few remaining major markets (and there's absolutely no reason to think it will), we can always edit again, but it's a bomb in North America as of right now, and will remain one--Erik's phrasing is perfect--it was and is viewed as a bomb here--since it's an American film, you can hardly say that doesn't matter.  I'm not saying foreign markets don't count, I don't think that at all, but it's already opened in most of those markets, and it did very poorly in all but one of them.  It's a bomb everywhere but Russia, and it was a very moderate performer there. Xfpisher (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For gods sake Xfpisher, have I once stated this film wasn't a bomb or flop? We know you love to use these words, but no need to keep repeating yourself. It's already been clarified that it underperformed in the US. Once it's been out in all markets then we can have a general statement. Actually, you're the one disagreeing with two editors. You lack sources to prove your 35m figure, while we've got plenty for the 30m figure. I don't see why you are insistent on "~35 million". Final response. Ar  re  05:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not the one who edited the box office information last, so take it up with Erik. And again, Nick Meyer, a studio executive, is a better source than a very early estimate from a website which wouldn't have had insider information, and which was undoubtedly the source for all the other sources you cited.  Not blaming The Numbers, but they are known for always putting up an estimate, even if there's no reliable info to be had.  They came pretty close, but were still millions off.  Again, if the consensus is leave it blank until such time as there's an exact figure, fine.  But just know I'll be sending that article link to The Numbers and Box Office Mojo.  They LIKE getting valid information. :)Xfpisher (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep going on about 'The Numbers'? they were just one of many sources which contained the 30m figure. I didn't even look into that source much. What you do in your own time (spitefully send links to organizations to prove your point on a Wikipedia article) is not relevant here - so please keep that to yourself. Ar  re  12:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The other sources you've put up are not real sources. They are minor online articles that are quite certainly using The Numbers as a source.  And Arre, weren't you saying I was being too personal a short time back?  I could easily respond in kind, but it's not worth the aggro, to use your local slang.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * they are. I could have put up many more, I just put up the first ones i could find. The Observer, Las Vegas Sun, E! Online, etc are perfect sources. It's so obvious here: you know I edited most of this article. You are determined to point out every little mistake. I mean look at your edit summaries. A lot of your adjustments are positive but no need to brag on about it. I made one simple typo and you go and on about it in the edit summary. Learn how to edit and contribute to discussions without viewing this as a game, in which you would always like you 'win'. Your attitude is blatantly obvious. Ar  re  00:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, with the type of 'source' you're using, it's just an endless replication of junk information. The Numbers SAYS they're just estimating, but when there's nothing else available, people working with a deadline use what they can find with a Google search.  Nick Meyer was directly involved with financing the movie, and has no reason to inflate the budget (rather the opposite, which means it could be more than he says).  But again, what's the problem here?  I'm not trying to edit it back to 35mil--leave it blank for now.  What's the harm?  Why do you need it to say 30mil, when it obviously was more than that?  I'm not the one hanging on here.  Of course you've made contributions, who said otherwise?  If by typo, you mean 'shocked' instead of 'shot' (which is what the linked source said, as I think you know by now) then why did you edit it back again the first time?  That's the only reason I went on about it, because it was irritating having to fix an obvious mistake TWICE.  At least you're accepting it's 'Parmitt', not 'Parmett'.  We're making progress here.  If you can accept the language about the crowd reaction in Palm Beach being deleted, and leave my latest edits alone, I'd be quite happy to let this go for now.  I'd think you would be too.  Peace, out.Xfpisher (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I edited it back is because all of your other edits were unnecessary. Please learn to work around things. Would you please stop saying the Numbers? It's very annoying...you're just going on and on about something that's already been clarified. No one cares. Goodbye :) the only progress we've made here is you not adding back your "assumptions" into the article (This is Wikpiedia, so obviously we are going to use to most widely reported figure [The sources didn't get this number from The Numbers, The Numbers obviously got this figure from other sources] instead of something a user assumes just because it came from one source. Ar re  02:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"But just know I'll be sending that article link to The Numbers and Box Office Mojo" and magically, Box Office Mojo has 35 million now listed as its budget, although there's no source that actually states that, just "mid-30s". — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fishy. Ar  re  04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Translation--because I sent them information they judged to be good enough to put up a budget number--which they hadn't done before, since bomojo is always a lot more careful about that kind of thing than The Numbers--you don't want to use it as a source, even though obviously I can't EDIT the Parker entry on that website. I emailed them.  They checked it out.  They put it up.  Faster than I thought they would (I emailed them day before yesterday), so maybe it wasn't even because of me.  Even if it was because I sent them the information, they still had to check it out, and obviously they considered that quote from Variety sufficient.  And your response to that is 'fishy'.  And yes it is--but the fishy smell is coming from you, Arre. Your quarrel isn't with me, but with the facts.Xfpisher (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to explain Xfpisher, it's obvious what's happened here, and it certainly is peculiar. Ar  re  05:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What's 'peculiar' about my finding an interview that gives us the best available information, and making that available to online sources, two of which have found it credible, and used it to determine an approximate budget for this movie? Which again, is the best anybody can do--no exact figure will ever be available, and this figure is obviously much closer to the mark than the previous one, which you wanted to keep up.  I truly believe you'd have accepted Box Office Mojo as a source if I hadn't honestly admitted that I'd given them the information that led to their putting up the number--I certainly could have handled some things better, but that could be said of you as well, so maybe we should forgive each other our trespasses and move on.  But that's neither here nor there with regards to the facts--there is no perfect source for movie budgets, so you go with the best sources you can find, and you certainly pay attention when people who devote themselves to documenting this kind of thing find a source credible enough to use.  Clear your head, count to 10, do the right thing.  (editing this in) I just got an email from Bruce Nash, who runs The Numbers--he thanked me for sending him the source, and he's already updated his database--he says the updated budget number (with article citation) will appear on the website in the near future.  So that's Box Office Mojo, The Internet Movie Database, AND The Numbers saying 35mil.  And I'm still not editing it.  Honestly, I'm not sure what difference it makes at this point.  Just thought you'd want to know.  Xfpisher (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Again with the essays. Calm down, the budget which has magically appeared on these sites after you emailed them with a 'mid-30s' source will go up. Ar re  04:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The budget was 'Mid-30's', according to one of the people who made it.
Months back, The Numbers put up a rough estimate, as they usually do, saying the budget was 30mil, but that was just an estimate, and they would be the first to admit they often get those wrong, and we all know they are frequently changed later. When somebody who was directly involved with actually getting a movie financed, produced, and distributed says the budget was Mid-30's, that means at least 35mil, probably more. And of course, all the other sources were just online articles where the writer went to The Numbers and quoted that figure, since there was no other info available at the time. Well, now there is--a highly qualified insider talking to Variety on the record. The budget was Mid-30's, and that's why I say ~35 million, since the exact figure can't be known (and who think it's ever EXACTLY 30 million, or whatever?). I am going to edit that again, and putting up a thousand sources all stemming from the same original inaccurate source isn't going to change the fact that Nick Meyer said--and this is a direct quote-- "I feel like we executed on what we said we were going to execute. We've got a great partner in FilmDistrict; I'm confident that they're killing it for us. We have a solid filmmaker in Taylor (Hackford), and he executed on the money. We have Jennifer (Lopez) and Jason (Statham) out promoting the movie. It's a great piece of IP, (by) Donald Westlake, one of the greatest crime novelists in the past 100 years in America. Budget is in the mid-30s; that's pretty good, given the caliber of the movie. It wasn't easy -- the financing, keeping it on the rails." Now Arre, you can continue to be stubborn about this, or you can accept reality--this is much better budget info from a much better source than you normally get for a picture like this. If the budget was 30mil, he'd have said so. The Numbers did not make this movie, and therefore they are an inferior source--as are all the lightweight entertainment journalists you quote, who are simply going to The Numbers for info. Variety quoting a studio executive directly involved with the film trumps all of these. It's weird that you take The Numbers as an unimpeachable source on budget info, which has never been their main area of expertise, but don't want to believe Box Office Mojo that the film is a bomb, even though that is their exact area of expertise. Xfpisher (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to just use an exact number than come up with "~35 million" from what he said, which was "mid-30 million". I think it just shouldn't be included until we have an exact number. Or at least say "mid-30 million", even though that's odd. I'd say that maybe the 30 million was probably for the film itself and then the "mid" was for promotion. But I'm just guessing. So silly to argue over such a little thing (can't believe I just said 5 million was a little thing... LOL!) — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 02:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xfpisher, please accept the fact that 30 million dollars is the most reported figure here, not 35 million. Please show me MORE than just a "mid 30m" statement and a 35m figure from one source. Or, like Status said, we'll just see what Box Office Mojo lists as the budget and remove it for now. Writing "~35 million" reeks of uncertainty and this is Wikipedia so we should have a definite number (which we did, one that has been reported by several sources). Agreed, stop making a big thing out of nothing. Ar  re  05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you been reading my responses? Honestly, I am not stubborn. Ofcourse this film is a bomb! Box Office Mojo is extremely reliable... If you can read properly, Status and I have clarified that once you gather the decency of waiting for more results, than we can sum it up as a flop. You are the stubborn one... in light of having various sources reporting 30 million, you are persistent in having the budget represented as 35 million.... "mid-30s" from someone who worked on the film/"35 m" from 1 source is not good enough. Ar  re  05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a flop in the U.S., widely reported as such, and there's no harm in saying that now--I certainly agree its final box office status is to be determined, though there's no doubt what it will be. And we're not talking about 'someone who worked on it', we're talking about one of the central people involved with getting the money to make the movie, and obviously nobody on this planet would know better.  If an exact figure is needed (and I hope you both realize such figures are usually approximate), then we will have to simply agree to leave it blank, since it can't possibly be 30mil, given Meyer's comments (nobody says 'Mid-30's' if the movie cost 30mil--you really did engage in some creative math there, Arre). At least the article isn't presenting misinformation (That Box Office Mojo clearly never bought into) as fact now. You're welcome.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are still someone who worked on it. They said mid-30s, not 35 million either. You weren't thanked, Xfpisher  Ar  re  12:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick Meyer, the best qualified source one could possibly imagine, said Mid-30's, and if that could be put up on the article, that would be fine by me, but I figured it wasn't, so I used the lowest possible figure, which is 35mil. I suspect it was probably MORE than 35mil.  But beyond any doubt it was more than 30mil.  So we're good as long as the article doesn't say it was 30mil.  I thank YOU, Arre.  You've made this most entertaining.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you repeating yourself? LOL Ar  re  00:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask yourself that question? :)
 * Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes [~]. No, Xfpisher -- you don't get it, do you? You are repeating yourself over and over again. Read everything over again. Ar  re  03:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Otoh, I'm not the one undoing my own edits. Hmm, indeed.  Xfpisher (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see it was removed. Giving "mid-30s" a number is WP:OR. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 30mil was never a solid number either, of course--that was a guess The Numbers made, and it turned out to be at least five mil off the mark. 35mil would be much closer to the exact number, which in any event is virtually never available--NO Wikipedia article ever has the exact budget number, it's always a bit off.  Mid-30's means in the neighborhood of 35mil, unless of course the producer is blowing smoke, in which case it was millions more.  In any event, Box Office Mojo now says 35mil (yes, I sent them the info about Meyer's comments, as I said I would), and they are more qualified to opine in this area than any of us editing this article.  It will eventually say 35mil here, unless it turns out it was more.  It's always an estimate; some estimates are just closer to the mark than others--and 30mil was much too far off the mark, so if it's that or nothing, it's nothing.  Funny how The Numbers saying 30mil was fine, but Box Office Mojo saying 35mil--much much later, with better information--it's going to be embarrassing to hold up having that budget number here, just because one editor is worried about JLO's movie career.  ;)Xfpisher (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say you need to watch your tone before you get into trouble. 30, was an estimate, but it was a solid number. "mid-30s" is also an estimate, not a solid number. —  Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, call in somebody higher up to look at this. I think they'd be most interested--maybe more in you and Arre than in me.  Box Office Mojo says 35mil--they obviously think that's what "Mid-30's" means.  Are you accusing them of being my henchmen?  Has it gotten that crazy?  You know, I said I'd contact them, and I did.  So we're having this conversation because I told the truth?  You two are just getting harder and harder to believe.  So please--let's have some adult supervision.  I dares ya.Xfpisher (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It only says 35 million because you told them to put 35. There's no source saying that. I dare ya to continue attacking users. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 18:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't want anybody taking a close look at this mess. You know how bad it looks--you basically just accused Box Office Mojo of being my sock puppet.  You really think they would put up any number I told them to?  Hey, maybe I'll tell them Parker cost a billion dollars. Biggest flop in movie history.  Going by your logic, that should be up by Monday.Xfpisher (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How the hell am I supposed to know? It's not like you said "Hey, here's a source stating it cost 35 million to make", because such a source doesn't exist. Unless there's something else that you haven't even provided here. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 18:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Status, let me ask you something--where do you think these budget quotes you put up as gospel come from? They come from people at these websites evaluating the information available to them.  Nobody ever calls them from the studio and says "Okay, here's what we spent on this movie."  They do not like that information to be widely available.  In their perfect world, nobody would know what they spent on their movies--they'd announce a preliminary figure before one frame of film was shot, and no matter how much higher the actual expenses went, that's what people would quote.  But we're curious to know, and it's part of how we decide how well (or poorly) a given film did, so in the very rare event that somebody directly at the center of financing a given film says "Budget was Mid-30's", that's actually a big deal to a site like box office mojo.  They take that very seriously, and they will use that to base a budget estimate on--knowing full well that's not the exact figure, and neither they nor any other website will ever have the exact figure.  No movie ever costs exactly 10 million, 20 million, 100 million, etc.  It's always approximate.  It's never exact.  And it's usually lowballed, because studios want people to think they made more money than they really did (or in this case, that they lost less money than they really did).  Box office mojo looked at the quote, and decided it met their criteria for saying the film cost around 35mil--they can always update later if it turns out to be more.  Now you can see I haven't edited the budget info for this movie in days, so what exactly is your problem here?  You know, if I'd just emailed bomojo on the quiet, it would say 35mil on this article right now.  But I was honest and aboveboard, and this is the thanks I get--being treated as if I got away with something.  And you're insulting box office mojo into the bargain.  What makes you think they're that easy to fool?  They had access to all the same sources Arre used, and they didn't think they were persuasive--they were persuaded by the article I sent them.  And honestly, I'd rather have that info there than here.  But it should be here as well.  I won't take it on myself to put it up--for now.  But you should think carefully about how this looks.  And that's all I have to say for the moment.  I'll be watching both of you.Xfpisher (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll be keeping a close eye on you as well. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do, but while you're at it, why not take a look at IMDb's page for Parker, which has the budget at 35mil. Ask yourself this--if somehow I can get incorrect unsourced budget information on Box Office Mojo and IMDb, am I really somebody you want to quarrel with?  Kidding, of course--that information is there because it's the BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION.  Only reason it's not on The Numbers yet is that my email to them didn't get through.  Working on that.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xfpisher, I take offense to you thinking I only care about Jennifer Lopez and her movie career. That is extremely rude and personal (Please see WP:PA for more information). Continue to write your offensive essays, but it doesn't detract from the unusual circumstance of this sudden change in Box Office Mojo's budget, a short period after you bragged about e-mailing them. This film is a flop....why are you having a hard time believing we think otherwise? I think you should examine how this looks, it's very fishy indeed. Ar  re  05:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arre, it's just an observation, not an attack. I am sorry if offense was caused, and I won't bring it up again--but you did say "You are very ignorant" before I ever made any mention of it, and you've made numerous other personal comments, and we're both clearly guilty in that regard, so let's just let the matter drop.  Btw, IMDb now says the budget is 35mil.  You want to talk about how fishy that is, or do you want to finally admit that's the best available number, and put it up?  (editing) As I mentioned above, Bruce Nash of The Numbers thanked me for the information, and says the updated budget number will shortly be on The Numbers page for Parker.  That's three out of three--Box Office Mojo, IMDb, The Numbers--all individually assessed the Nick Meyer interview quote, and determined it to be good enough to base a revised estimate on.  None of the other sources mean a damn, because odds are they all stemmed from online journalists taking the 30mil figure from The Numbers or IMDb.  How much more you need?  Xfpisher (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an observation, it is a personal attack. An observation would be "I see the primary reason you work on this article is because of your work with Jennifer Lopez subjects", not "just because one editor is worried about JLO's movie career". Also, the IMDb is not a reliable source; this is still too fishy and should be looked into more. Regards, Ar  re  23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then so is calling me ignorant. And numerous other things you've said.  But we're both breaking the rules just talking about it, because if an editor is attacked, he or she is not supposed to respond in kind, or to endlessly dwell on it, but to try and get the conversation back on track.  Which is what I'm doing by asking you why you're rejecting every source you don't agree with--you don't offer any explanation as to why The Numbers was a good source, and IMDb and Box Office Mojo are not (all three are regularly used by Wikipedia editors for budget info, and as I keep trying to explain, all budget estimates are precisely that, and yet Wikipedia still uses them).  And again, I won't edit the budget number in for now, as long as you don't restore the old discredited budget quote.  I will not bring up anything personal in the future, but every time you say "this is fishy" you are, in fact, making a personal comment about another editor, not to mention three very respected sources of information about film budgets and grosses.  I hope your next response is about that, and is a real answer to my questions--otherwise I'll have no response to make at all.  But because of this unfortunate history of mistrust between us, I will not edit in the 35mil, though it's heavily substantiated.  Eventually, you understand, I will bring in another editor. It will eventually say 35mil.  That is going to happen.  It really doesn't matter if it's tonight, or a few weeks from now.Xfpisher (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we just stop arguing about this now? Can we all just agree to leave out a budget for the time being, until we get a concrete number from another source? I think that's a good resolution. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should stop arguing about it, however there's unlikely to ever be a more 'concrete' number than the one we have now. We have Box Office Mojo, IMDb, and according to the guy who runs the website you formerly accepted as a source, The Numbers will also say 35mil soon.  The fact that three independent sources (that I can't edit) have accepted this number proves it's concrete enough for them--I don't believe there's any Wikipedia rule that says you have to have absolute proof of exactly how much a movie cost, or else no Wikipedia article about any movie would have any budget quote.  They are all estimates.  100% of them.  The sources that say 35mil are accepted sources, regularly used by Wikipedia editors.  I have refrained from editing 35mil back in, though I'd be completely justified in doing so.  If it doesn't end up there at some point, I'll consult with another editor to try and resolve this.  You should both think long and hard about whether you want that to happen.  But agreed, let's leave it alone for now. Xfpisher (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xfp, I never called you fishy. I said this situation is fishy, not you. The fact that they updated so fast after you bragged about e-mailing them is clearly odd. Agree with Status, let's wait. Also: I wasn't even the person who added the 30 million budget in the first place. It felt unreliable considering it was un-sourced, so I quickly put a random source (The Numbers). Stop going on about it (i was probably a bit careless, but I didn't spend hours thinking about whether it was a good source or not). So calm down. Ar  re  04:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arre, again, discussions like this are themselves a violation of Wikipedia guidelines for communicating with other editors. I think we've both behaved inappropriately, and it should stop.  If you're waiting for me to admit I was the only one at fault, you will be waiting a long time.  Again, I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and you should do the same, but there's no need, because I have a pretty thick skin, and I know nothing I've said here was ignorant--or fishy.  Talk to you later--unless, of course, you put up 35mil as the budget number, in accordance with the best available sources.  In that case, we need never talk again. Xfpisher (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, I found another source for 35mil--Entertainment Weekly put this up weeks ago: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/01/27/box-office-report-hansel-gretel-parker-movie-43/ 'Jason Statham’s annual action misfire Parker lived up to its low expectations, finishing in fifth place with $7 million from 2,224 theaters. FilmDistrict’s shoot-em-up, whose budget was in the $35 million range, didn’t get any boost from costar Jennifer Lopez, who proved unable to attract viewers outside her go-to rom-com genre. Parker opened short of Statham’s last three leading efforts, Safe ($7.9 million debut), Killer Elite, ($9.3 million), and The Mechanic ($11.4 million), and it will likely finish below $20 million domestically.'  Again, film studios don't typically release the exact amount of money they spent on a film, and in many cases it's hard for even them to know exactly how much a movie cost to make.  It doesn't work like that, and probably none of the budgets listed on Wikipedia are 100% right, but they are still there, and 35mil is what should be on this article.  Given the date of this article, it's likely that this writer saw the Nick Meyer interview as well, which just goes to prove it's a valid source, accepted widely, by seasoned film industry observers.Xfpisher (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And now The Numbers page for Parker says the budget was 35 million. We have a studio head who was ca central figure in financing the movie saying it was Mid-30's, which typically translates to 35 million (give or take).  We have Entertainment Weekly saying '35 million range.'  And we have all three major databases--Box Office Mojo, The Internet Movie Database, and The Numbers--all agreeing that the best figure to quote is 35 million.  And we have Wikipedia saying nothing at all.  And if this policy was followed for all Wikipedia articles about movies, then none of them would have any budget information.  No source would ever be good enough.  I'll give you both some time to think about this, and then if I don't see that number on the article, I'll ask another editor to come in and assess the situation.  I am absolutely done arguing now.  Because the argument is over.Xfpisher (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsure why you are acting as if I was in an argument here... I wasn't in the slightest... I said wait for a concrete number not a "mid-30 million" or a "35 million range", that's not an exact number. If you don't understand that, that is not my problem. You contacted Box Office Mojo, telling them to change the budget. Do you not actually see how that can become a conflict of interest? Both Arre and I just agreed above to wait for a source that actually says "The budget of the film was $35 million", or "36 million", "50 million" for all I care. You're fighting with yourself at this point. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Xfpisher, our reasoning for wanting a definite source (the EW one isn't) is obvious. Do not treat this as an argument, it's a discussion. Ar  re  04:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)