Talk:Argylle

Cena filming quote

I’m not looking to make this a big to-do, but the citation just doesn’t include anything concrete about filming details. Cena saying he’s appearing for WWE on two specific dates isn’t a means of saying filming is happening in between them, that just reads as inference. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: In the interview, John Cena is asked when he will be going to London to film Argylle with Matthew Vaughn. He responds by saying that it's "classified" but also that he will be working on said "classified" material between August 21 and September 10, 2021. His mention of those dates is included with his events with the WWE but that doesn't necessarily matter. He was asked when filming would take place and he specified. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina Cena is implying that he will be filming Argylle between August 21 and September 10, but it's very unlikely that this film is only shooting for 3 weeks. Especially because it is filming "across various locations in Europe." I think this may be only Cena's filming schedule. This source is not definitive enough for the claims it is being used for in this article. Rmaloney3 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer

Okay why is it so important to note she is Vaughn’s wife? It doesn’t look significant in regards to the films production history, and the overall point of NOTINHERITED is a means to discourage making their claim to fame solely in regards to their relationship to another notable person. She is capable of standing on her own merit as a film producer given she’s done so on several movies. We aren’t noting that Zygi Kamasa is the group CEO of Vaughn’s production company so why is it an absolute must we add Schiffer is married to the director? Rusted AutoParts 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessary. However, sources on this film credit her as Claudia Vaughn. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Even still I just really don’t see the need for the notation. The editor can click on her link and see it. Like if it was somehow part of the production history, like them being married was somehow an inspiration or start off point for why the film was being made, “Claudia Schiffer, Vaughn’s wife who is an executive producer on the film, first discovered the story and brought it to Vaughn, who became interested in making it” or something is one thing but she just seems to exec produce his films in general. This kinda goes into my point as well about executive producers just not being that integral to notarize in the production section unless their involvement is part of the production history. Like if it’s a sequel and they were the previous director and stayed on as executive producer, or in the case of this Bee Gees movie where Steven Spielberg, who I guess has some form of rights to make a biopic about them, was initially cut out of the new production but reinstated after complaining, that’s the kind of stuff interesting to note. Rusted AutoParts 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Apple as distributor

@IAmNMFlores: Apple didn't offload the project to Universal. Like with their deals to get Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon into theatres, they entered a partnership with a second studio to work together. I have seen the Universal press release, I know it's language. But this doesn't mean Apple is not part of the distribution equation anymore, so excluding them is disingenuous to do. This is more akin to Paramount and 20th Century Fox partnering to co-distribute Titanic than it is Sony selling The Mitchells vs. the Machines to Netflix. Myself and @Drmies: have both reverted you on this now. Please stop edit warring. Rusted AutoParts 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I initally believed that, as it would make sense that it follows the same pattern as Killers and Napoleon, but sadly there is a lack of evidence in favor of that conclusion, so it seems closer to a Mitchells case. Look, just find one generally reliable source. Drmies told me to find and cite my sources myself and I did. If you can bring a single source post-Universal deal (so anything on or after September of this year) that says that Apple TV+ is distributing too (even if the source simplifies or substitutes the name to just "Apple" or whatever), then there will be no problem if you add it to the article. I got in trouble for not citing, you're getting it easy with me not giving you any big warnings. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean lack of evidence? No source exists that states Universal took sole authorship of the film, because this did not happen, not at all a Mitchells case. A Universal Pictures written press release that accurately calls Universal a distributor doesn't make Apple not involved in the distribution of their own project. Additionally, I don't have to seek out a source calling it a partnership, the initial Variety report about Paramount teaming with them states this clearly in the byline. A source past September doesn't need to exist to corroborate what the situation is: a cooperation. Why would I be given a warning for making the infobox reflect what is accurately stated in the sources linked? So continued exclusion of Apple from the Distributor field is unwarranted and as stated, disingenuous. Rusted AutoParts 20:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's called common sense. In these contradicting statements, it's almost always the current up-to-date one that's correct. Guy found a source that said Martin Scorsese was an executive producer on Joker, later the official website didn't list Scorsese as an executive producer and I tried to remove it but he wouldn't let me with your logic. Guess who was right? Also, really, the byline? The same one where under it says produced by Apple Original Films and distributed by Universal Pictures.

All I asked was a single source that backed up your claims. Fortunately for you, I did the dirty work, and actually dug to find just something that was "good enough". Here, it's People magazine but they're not bad, I guess. IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My "claims" were already in the article. "Apple is partnering with Universal to release the film on the big screen" is literally right under the title of the Variety article. It was there from the go. And citing previous conflicts you've had doesn't negate that. Rusted AutoParts 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, that conclusion was flawed if you didn't ignore the actual article saying produced by Apple Original Films and distributed by Universal Pictures. It needed additional confirmation was what all I was saying. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Budget, cost, or price paid?

The article lists the budget as $200 million. That seems unusually high. (Vaughn had a production budget of $100 million on The King's Man[1] his previous film.) The Variety reference[2] says "The company also bought Matthew Vaughn’s spy thriller “Argylle” for $200 million. which seems to indicate not so much the actual cost of making the film only but rather the price at which Apple bought the distribution rights and ownership. (For example Apple bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, but the film itself had a production budget of $10 million). Can we get any clarification that the figure being listed as the budget in the Infobox is truthfully the production budget, and not a much higher figure Apple paid to buy it off Marv Studios? -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Metafictional Promotion/Stunt Book

Currently the article mentions The Hollywood Reporter digging up social media accounts and listings for an Elly Conway novel the movie is "based on."

What's the protocol on documenting situations like this? As the article currently stands it doesn't fully explain that Universal Studios has commissioned a ghost writer to create the in-universe spy novel that fictional writer Elly Conway has published, and are attributing it to said fictional author? The current cover art for the book on Amazon features the phrase "the book that inspired the major motion picture" but all signs point to this being an advertising gimmick. All The Hollywood Reporter can say is the evidence in 2022 shows Elly Conway is a fictional character and the studio is attributing an upcoming novel to said character.

Yet nobody from Universal Studios is going to go on record and say out loud "this book is fictional," so how does one explain that without jumping to conclusions? GavinGaddis (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cat controversy

Should we add a topic ‘criticism’, containing information about the used cat breed? Suggested content:

Alfie the Cat is played by Chip, a cat of the breed Scottish Fold [3]. This type of breed is recognizable by it’s folded ears, but is banned in many countries, because experts believe that all cats of this breed are in constant pain [4]. Banning countries include the Netherlands in 2014, Austria in 2020, Flanders (Belgium) in 2021, Victoria (Australia), and Norway in 2023.. Experts fear an increase of populairity for this breed, due to this movie [5] [6] [7] Barendnu (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

None of these citations refer to or are relevant to Argylle in any way. This would be unencyclopedic to include and not worth discussing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations 5, 6 and 7 do actually refer specifically to Argylle, but please share your opinion about adding these or not. Barendnu (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, given they are mostly non-English it was hard to tell. This all falls under WP:TRIVIA regardless. As subsequent editors suggested, these could be relevant at the Scottish Fold page, though that's something you'd have to bring up there, not here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this has any place in this article. Maybe on the Scottish Fold page? Mike Allen 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the citations and information specifically and exclusively about the Scottish Fold breed ought to be added to and explored on the Scottish Fold page, if not already, while the specific citations about the Scottish Fold breed inasmuch as it is related to the film itself, the aforementioned citations 5, 6, and 7, should probably be included within this article. RedMethyst (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Those three citations in particular could be of use, although they would have to be incorporated in a more constructive manner from higher quality sources than those that are merely speculating about the use of the cat in the film, which presently don't have any strong reliable backing to warrant inclusion in this article at this time. I would hardly even say this is a controversy, which tend to get too much focus on articles of recent releases which leads to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If this ends up becoming a notable subject of discussion in regards to the film over time, then it could be added with more reputable sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Kingsman?

Real talk, is this Kingsman? The mid-credits scene announces a prequel film called Argylle: The First Chapter coming to cinemas soon, with the very actor the director has been shooting a film with for the last few months, and the scene shows Argylle being recruited by Kingsman. So if the film is about a Kingsman agent, should this go on the Kingsman page as the next film in that franchise, even the first Argylle (this film) was not about the same agents as the first two films or the prequel? 77.92.145.214 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Masterkey or Masterfile

I just finished watching this. I could be wrong but I think they called it a masterfile, not a masterkey. Did I just understand them incorrectly? Rockfang (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)