Talk:Napoleon (2023 film)

Title

@Rusted AutoParts: Multiple sources say the title has been changed from Kitbag to Napoleon (Collider, /Film, Witney Gazette, and Deadline at least twice. Deadline even adds "Napoleon [formerly Kitbag]". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: the problem is there’s no originating source specifically about the name change or confirmation from people involved with the film it’s been changed. It’s happened before where I would see Deadline randomly refer to a film with a new title than before, I move it to there then it either was not the new title or changed again. Vice comes to mind where Deadline and a few other places had been calling it Backseat and McKay at some point said that Backseat was never the title. Also those source outside the second Deadline all point towards that Kevin Walsh story where Deadline in passing calls it Napoleon. I just feel it’s prudent to have something better to confirm the name change than a passing sentence in a different topic. We get a source about new cast members or filming with that title, I’ll be all for moving it to Napoleon. Rusted AutoParts 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Both of the things I were looking for were tackled in the newest source, I've returned the name to Napoleon. Rusted AutoParts 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

“Kitbag” quote

The article contains a line about the Kitbag title having been takin from a saying “"There is a general's staff hidden in every soldier's kitbag." I cannot find this “saying” used other than in reference to this fim (all identically so, so I imagine it has been lifted directly from a press-release. However, I can find multiple uses of a saying attributed to Napoleon along the lines of “Every soldier carries a Field-Marshal’s (or Marshal’s) baton in his knapsack” (although even this appears to consolidate sayings by several people, and may indeed be an older Russian proverb). Do/ did generals ever carry staffs or staves? “General’s staff” might be a confusion of “General Staff”, but as it stands, it looks like this version of the quote was made up for the film. Jock123 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The quotation about a field marshal's baton I have heard before. The baton was the badge of office of a field marshal, so I think the quotation may be changed because "General" is a rank the public might be more familiar with than "Marshal"; the same with changing knapsack for kitbag. I doubt it is related to the idea of a General Staff. The baton quotation is much more commmon Forbioso (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Distributors

Essentially, I put sources proving that Apple TV+'s Apple Original Films is a distributor alongside Sony/Columbia, yet User:PepGuardi is reverting these changes with little to no evidence or reason why. They previously mentioned it on User talk:IAmNMFlores#Napoleon film yet never responded back after days. IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, you should know Apple can’t fully distribute movies in theaters because it still doesn’t have its own theatrical distributor branch, that’s why Apple is partnering with theatrical distributors like Sony, Paramount and Universal. You pointed out many quotations on Apple partnership with Sony as if it meant both would split distribution. I’m 100% sure you have the best intention in providing the best information. However please, don’t keep undoing this article stable version, specially when you’re adding an information that is not right. You can read wikipedia articles of Apple TV+ (which is just a stream service) and Apple Films Studios (which is a film production company not a theatrical distributor company) to better understand how those Apple branches work. Apple might have its own theatrical distributor branch in the future but right now they need to partner with distributor companies so that their films can get widespread theatrical releases. All the best, PepGuardi (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You just said it yourself, they can't fully distribute movies that's why they're partnering. You literally explained why they have to co-distribute. ATV+/AOF has distributed theatrically in limited theaters. Again, I actually have [reliable] sources that proves their involvement. It's unusual to ignore citations. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don’t know why you’re doing this, I mean I hope you’re just doing this in good faith. I can’t do much other than advise you to read Wikipedia articles for Apple TV+ and Apple Films, and also Apple general article. Apple doesn’t have ANY theatrical distributor branch, it’s pretty simple. Once you understand this, you’ll see it is pointless trying to force the word “partnership” into meaning “co-distribution”. In fact Napoleon is the first movie entirely produced by Apple to have a full theatrical release, this just shows how newbee Apple still is to theatrical distribution market. That’s why they need to partner with distributors, because they don’t have means to do this. This makes part of Apple new strategy of producing movies and finding partners that can distribute them. For Napoleon, Apple WENT OUT and aligned in on one-off distribution to Sony. You can understand a bit more through this article from Deadline, which by the way the title is pretty explanatory on how the partnership works “Ridley Scott-Helmed ‘Napoleon’ Set By Apple Original Films For November Sony Theatrical Release”. This article can help you better understand the partnership between Apple and the distributors. Maybe in the future Apple might establish a theatrical distribution branch, but right now their strategy is keeping producing films and passing them to well establish distributors that can give Apple movies a 1st class distribution like any other blockbuster produced by top 5 major American studios. I hope all is clear for you now. All the best, PepGuardi (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing this because I'm confident I'm right. You only used one source. Apple has literally distributed in limited theaters alone before, so it's not like they don't have the inability to distribute theatrically. You literally used the TITLE of a source to try and prove a point, essentially ignoring this:

• "Napoleon" will be distributed by both Apple Original Films and Sony Pictures as part of a one-off deal. from /Film
• Jointly distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing and Apple TV+... from Looper
• DISTRIBUTOR: Apple Films Ltd & Sony Pictures Releasing from MPA's Film Ratings

IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean I can send you a random site that says the earth is flat, this doesn’t make the earth flat. You’ve been blocked by Wikipedia for insisting in poorly sourced content, so you have to take extra care with this, because right now you’re presenting sources to argue Apple TV+ (a solely stream service) is a theatrical distributor. I advise you again to ready about the difference between Netflix and Apple strategies, this could help you to understand why Apple is handing over their movies to be delivered by well established distributors whereas Netflix refuses to give their films a conventional theatrical distribution. I mean, once again I advise you to read Wikipedia articles for Apple TV+, Apple Films Studios and general Apple, once you understand Apple doesn’t have any theatrical distribution branch you’ll understand why Apple needs to partner with the theatrical distributors. PepGuardi (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To relegate /Film, Looper, and the MPA's Film Ratings as just random sites and not reliable sources that have been used in many film articles prior makes your argument very flawed. I was never blocked for poorly sourced content, I was blocked for failing to put sources, which is not the case here. You've made very misleading claims thus far to try and prove some point. I think I feel right to question your interpretation skills as a result, and I stand by my earlier points that Apple and Sony co-distributed. IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So to recap, it says that Apple co-distributed with Sony in /Film, Looper, and The Hollywood Reporter, plus in the article List of Apple TV+ original films#Original films. UPDATE: It literally says Apple TV+ Jumps Into Theatrical Movie Distribution, confirming Apple does theatrically distribute. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the current formatting in the article is fine. WP:FILMDIST says "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released." As the film was first released in theaters, I believe that the theatrical film distributor should be the one mentioned. I don't believe that most of the articles quoted above suggest or prove that Apple distributed the film in theaters. Presumably for the MPA rating, it was a joint submission for streaming and theatrical and hence both are mentioned. Same for The Hollywood Reporter article where I assume that they are listing both as the streaming and theatrical release dates are very close. Neither of the big two box office websites (Box Office Mojo or The Numbers) list Apple as a theatrical distributor for the film nor did Deadline [1]. Variety's review credits states "A Sony release of a Columbia Pictures, Apple Original Films presentation of a Scott Free production." [2] and says Apple hired Sony to distribute it here [3] so I don't think that Apple needs to be listed as a distributor but think it is fine as it is. Sudiani (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So should we remove Apple from the infobox then too? For some reason it's been unchanged. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ridley Scott Response To Historian Community

Can we please add his response to the historian community on the inaccuracies.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/20/ridley-scott-napoleon-interviewee

in this article, he says verbatim '“Excuse me, mate, were you there?” he raged. “No? Well, shut the fuck up then' BigUnit69 (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I approve this message. Mike Allen 21:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, but I looked at the The Times article that the quote was supposed to come from, and I can't see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sunday Times is paywalled. Other references that repeat his comment have been added.

Unfortunately the Historical accuracy section is a bit of mess, as editors have enthusiastically added many sources that do not even appear to be specifically relevant to the text where they were added. This could take considerable effort to cleanup. -- 109.76.202.80 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel some editors are putting way too much weight on this section. It's a MOVIE, of course it's not 100% accurate. Why would anyone think it would be? It's almost the largest section of the article (other than plot). Ridiculous. Mike Allen 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If you see how other films cover historical inaccuracies, they generally have a couple points and that's it, I don't see we need such significant amount written when that would take ages to do.

However I do think that Ridley Scott quote is very important :) BigUnit69 (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Add this opinion by Jean Tulard to the shitstorm. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would advise not going too heavy on the French language critiques. This is an English-language film, a piece of Hollywood "historical fiction", and it is better to offer some critique that is based on plain speak, and not the emotional ramblings of nationalistic historians. This film is not presented as being a historical docu-drama.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be a mistake to ever expect accuracy from big movies. They rarely try, and even when they do try, they rarely succeed. Maybe "historical" shouldn't be in the first sentence though either (describing it as a biographical film might be less worse). -- 109.79.164.19 (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It is very important to highlight historical inaccuracies because this movie will shape the popular memory about Napoleon and Napoleonic Wars for decades to come, so viewers should be warned that what they are going to watch or have watched is unhistorical fiction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispalois (talk • contribs)

That's not Wikipedia's job to do that. Mike Allen 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand we disagree, but that is not a reason to delete my edits, which are duly referenced and not redundant with the rest of the section. Furthermore, this movie's historical inaccuracy has been one of the most notable aspects of its reception. It ought to be discussed. Hispalois (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think consensus is quite clear. Mike Allen 02:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but no, the "consensus" is not clear to me at all: a handful of general opinions and zero opinions on my edits other than yours.

In this movie, as I wrote above, its historical inaccuracy should not be silenced because it has been a key aspect of its reception. Examples:

BBC People Deutsche WelleForeign Policy

In addition, long sections on historical inaccuracy are adequate for movies and shows of "historical" nature. A good example is The Tudors.

Mike, your self-decided limit on the length of this particular section is arbitrary. The information you are blocking is relevant, is referenced with reliable sources and broadens the scope of voices, thus helping counter systemic bias.

And do not forget: Wikipedia is not paper!

So, please refrain from this edit war and restore my text. Hispalois (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

When you say "so viewers should be warned that what they are going to watch or have watched is unhistorical fiction" makes it seem like you are not trying to counter systemic bias. I honestly have no interest in this film or the subject, so I will let others decide if the content you added is warranted. Mike Allen 13:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine. However, others can only decide if they are able to read the content I added. I will therefore introduce it again. Hispalois (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes

At 1:10 they confused Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor with Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor.Taksen (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Budget, cost, or price paid?

The article lists the budget as $130–200 million. The is quite a large range of difference with no explanation in the article body. Can we get any clarity on that? Did the film get greenlit at a lower price and go over budget for some reason? Did the fast pace of production push up costs? Is the higher figure including other costs (reshoots?) that the lower cost did not? Are UK tax credits part of the price difference? (That could account for as much as a 25% difference, but it seems unlikely to explain that large a difference.) Is the lower value the cost of making the film only and the higher figure the price at which Apple bought it from Scott Free Productions? The Variety reference says Napoleon "cost $200 million" and the very next sentence said "The company also bought Matthew Vaughn’s spy thriller “Argylle” for $200 million. which seems to indicate not so much the actual production budget of the film, so much as the price Apple paid to buy it and distribute it (like when they bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, when the film itself costhad a production budget of $10 million). If we could get any clarification on this and maybe be able to add information to the Production section (or release section) that could significantly improve the article. -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Genre bloat

Please note WP:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.". The lead section is supposed to be concise, and if possible list the primary genre not every possible applicable genre. An editor tried to add even more genres to the first sentence, and offered the BBFC website as a reference[4] when the sidebar for that site very cleary and simply categorizes Napoleon as Genre(s) Drama.

The previous status quo was "epic historical drama". I believe there should be some discussion before making any changes to the genre. -- 109.76.131.29 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There should be some discussion. There should also be some explanation, please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and try to explain your changes with a meaningful edit summary.

Maybe other editors will think "epic action film" is a better description, and that more weight should be given to descriptions from Apple[5] or the Napoleon website[6] than the many other reliable sources describing this film but I don't think this is change that should be made without any discussion and not without at least an edit summary to explain why an editor thinks this is better. -- 109.76.131.29 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What's your problem? I have provided references for the genre this time. Even for BBFC I used the quote "Historical epic action drama depicting Napoleon Bonaparte's military rise to power and his tumultuous relationship with his beloved wife Josephine. Bloody battles and execution scenes include some emphasis on gory detail." It's alright if that wasn't okay with you since the main genre said only drama. I fixed it with references from Apple and the film's official website. No need to start a war over it. Now you even reverted sourced edits. Make an account first for a change. 77Survivor (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not delete other peoples comments from the talk page.

WP:BRD You made a WP:BOLD change without any explanation, I'm challenging that change (by reverting it) and asking you to discuss it and restoring the WP:STATUSQUO] until then. I am hoping other editors to weigh in. The Film project guideline WP:FILMGENRE says to reflect on what should be given due WP:WEIGHT, and there are available sources, so it is not at all clear which sources should be given the most weight. Please explain what the problem was with the previous description and why you think the proposed changes are better. -- 109.76.131.29 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This WP:WEIGHT thing is too subjective. You are misusing it very clearly. Previous genre was not incorrect but neither is this. I dare you to do the same edit to RRR which has the same genre classification I was going for. You won't because no one is going to take you seriously there. I'm not editing it again to avoid edit warring but I have been editing pages for years and you appear out of nowhere, not even a day since you start editing, and my edits get reverted due to this subjective misuse of guidelines. Let's see how many let you get away with this nonsense. 77Survivor (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You made a bold change to an article that had been stable for quite a while, you didn't explain it, and the first source your provided seemed to contradict your point. You seem to be assuming that sources that make long prosaic descriptions are an appropriate source of genre definition.

Your second attempt seemed more reasonable but you didn't explain that either. I'm asking that you hold on a minute and discuss your changes. Maybe the text quoted from the Apple website and Napoleon website describing this as an "epic action film" would be better, maybe give it a minute and see if other editors agree with you. If you discuss and gain some consensus for your changes they are more likely to stick, instead of the next person boldly ignoring the status quo the same way you did to this article. (I choose to edit anonymously, that's allowed. If you've been editing pages for years then you should definitely know to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with a meaningful edit summary. If someone changed the genre on RRR without explaining it I'm sure other editors would revert to the WP:STATUSQUO ask for discussion there too.) -- 109.76.131.29 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)