Jump to content

Talk:List of most expensive films

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

Pirates listed twice[edit]

Why is Pirates...Black Pearl listed twice, one for $140 million, and another for $125 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.77.37 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2006

Number One?[edit]

Number One of bthe most expensive Movies in Dollar is missing

What about transformers 1 and 2: revenge of the fallen[edit]

THese movies are very expensive !!! Tranformers 2 cost them 225 million IT SHOULD BE ON THE LIST!!!

Star Wars[edit]

I don't think that Star Wars 7 and 9 budget is too high, Forbes clearly make a mistake. 151.28.43.200 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. The account filings are publicly accessible from HMRC. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that isn't a reliable source 95.245.197.56 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com. HMRC is a rock solid source (unless Disney are committing tax fraud) and Caroline Reid is a seasoned journalist with a relatively high profile in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is obvious that Disney is committing tax fraud or the movie is a massive flop ans it wasn't because Disney made two others sequels. 95.245.197.56 (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to provide evidence of that. We don't remove sourced claims simply because editors disagree with the source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link to past discussion about additional budget sources has been archived and moved Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_81#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com. -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note carefully that figures quoted might not include all production costs, and may only include UK based spending that has to be declared for tax breaks. USA spending and some post production might not be included in the financial records provided for UK tax credits. Also even if you take the sources at face value, it doesn't seem entirely clear to readers that figures being listed here are only the 'net cost after tax credits, not the gross total up front spend, the actual production budget that had to be put up to get the film made. I disagree entirely with the parent post, if anything Forbes (and this Wikipedia list article) are low-balling it, not stating the full costs in the accounts, and those are still not necessary the real total costs for the whole production. Hollywood accounting! -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts submitted to HMRC will include all of the costs up to the end of the fiscal year in which the report covers. The way the Film Tax Relief fund works is that an incorporated company is set up just for the production of the film. The "company" houses all of the costs incurred from pre-production, filming and post-production. This will also include any costs incurred outside of the tax jurisdiction. Obviously, the tax credit is only applied to the expenditure that qualifies, but the tax return covers the complete expenditure on for the film for any given year. The reason the full expenditure has to be logged is because qualification for the credit depends on a minimum of UK core expenditure of 10%. If you have a full set of tax returns (which can stretch to 2–3 years after the film is made) then in principle you will have a complete record of the full expenditure on the film (barring development, marketing and distribution costs).
As for whether the "gross" or the "net" represents the "true" budget, it depends on how you look at it; the gross figure represents the market value of the production, while the net figure represents the sum of money that is ultimately spent and has to be recouped. I don't think it is a question that concerns this article. We prioritise net to be consistent with the other figures in the article, which are mostly estimates which traditionally represent the net figure. It is is true that sometimes the sources don't always make the distinction. The article isn't perfect, it can only be as good as its sources at the end of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it depends on how you look at it". As a reader of an encyclopedia I hope things would not depend too much on interpretation and that articles would be clear and not misleading, and avoid presenting incomplete information as if it was definitive. (I believe the price paid and money spent up front is true the cost, irrespective of getting rebates cashback or tax credits later.) In most cases believe readers are better served by providing a range than by switching to a single figure without clear consensus.
As an occasional editor of an enclopedia I thought there would be a guideline to make this clearer, but aside from the Template:Infobox film advising editors to keep both sources I haven't seen any better advice on this. In the case of this list article I can understand making some simplifications and generalisation and doing the best with the available sources but my concern is editors looking at this article then in good faith removing details from the film articles (lead section and Infobox in particular) isntead of trying to explain in the article body. (Again as I said before I'd be very surprised if the UK records included all the post production and USA located costs.) -- 109.78.198.193 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really make much sense to have a range in a ranked table. The net figure is the industry "standard" for presenting budgets, because from the studio's perspective this is the sum that must be recouped once the film has been completed. You either have a list of net figures, or a list of gross figures, but mixing them would make the chart inconsistent. Since most gross figures are unavailable this list compiles net figures (which are widely available), which is made clear in the lead. When a source provides both a gross figure and a net figure the gross figure is included in a note. Betty Logan (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to a new Forbes article, the total budgets for TFA/TROS were actually 567.3 million and 542.4 million respectively. Numbers are from most-recent company filings, and the reason the movie's production cost has increased over time is because the various temporary production companies (Foodles, etc.) have residual costs/fees associated with having filmed in the UK. I'm not really a Wikipedia editor, I just happened to be looking at this page a couple days ago, and then came across this new article today. 2607:FEA8:E0A8:5900:1103:83D8:AA96:A870 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The higher figure is almost certainly the gross budget, whereas this article lists films by the bet budget i.e. after deducting the tax credit, as this is the net expenditure to the production company. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow[edit]

That movie costs 288 million, right below Dead Reckoning. Shouldn’t that be on there? 2603:6080:6004:85C:DD03:DC9B:4C6E:22CB (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MI7 Budget[edit]

It appears that Mission Impossible 7 has a gross budget of $291 million dollars, but the net budget is $219 million dollars and the net budget of other films appear next to them instead of the gross one. So why doesn’t it happen with this film? PabloDiaz2018 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accompanying source states "Reported budget on this Mission is a net $291M, the pic challenged by Covid starts and stops in Italy". That seems to be pretty clear the $291m figure is the net figure. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic World Updates[edit]

Thanks to the most recent tax releases, Fallen Kingdom is now the most expensive film of all time. poketape (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits. Whilst I understand why you made the changes you did, this isn't a simple application of WP:CALC. Secondary sources must be provided to interpret the information in primary sources (see WP:PRIMARYSOURCE). Conversion rates are also not straightforward for amounts accumulated over time as they fluctuate on a daily basis. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes.com contributors[edit]

Several sources here are from Forbes Senior Contributors. WP:FORBESCON says Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. I'm assuming that's the case here; if so this edit of mine was in the wrong. 70.163.220.139 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify for a tax credit, a production company must submit audited accounts to HMRC (the UK tax body). If you know the tax code for the film, obtaining the budget is straightforward. Caroline Reid is an established British journalist who has written on this topic for The Times (UK paper of record). Personally I would regard her as a subject specialist. In truth, the only thing that prevents Wikipedia editors from doing what Caroline Reid does is matching the code to the film/ More background here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_81#Budgets_revisited_/_Caroline_Reid_and_Forbes.com Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this was informative. 70.163.220.139 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_films&oldid=1234674149"