Talk:Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Budget
[edit]The budget for this film was $96 million. The Film LA report says as much at the bottom of page 21 (not page 23 as the citation claimed). I've copied part of the table here to make it easy for people to see the information the report actually provides.
| NAME | Budget Est. (millions) | Shoot Start | Shoot Wrap | Primary Location | Secondary Location(s) | Location Spending (millions) | Incentive Amount (millions) | Scored in California |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Reacher: Never Go Back | $96 | 10/19/2015 | 02/2016 | Louisiana | $65.00 | $21.00 | ||
| Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
At no point is the claimed net budget figure $75 mentioned, and that is because it was synthesis based on simple subtraction of $21 million in incentives from the $96 million budget figure. I don't think it is appropriate to put this figure in the Infobox. I definitely don't think it should be added to the Infobox without adding text to the article explaining it first. Hollywood accounting makes it is difficult to be sure that even this little bit of synthesis can be safely made.
Reading the report further:
A good example of this is the 2015 film Daddy’s Home[4], which was reported in industry trade publications as having a $50 million budget. For the studio, this amount is fairly precise, as the out of pocket cost for the studio itself was $53 million. However, the gross (i.e. actual) cost of the film was $69 million. The other $16 million of the actual cost was financed by Louisiana’s film incentive.
It isn't clear that the net budget can be deduced by subtracting the subsidies, as they may have already been subtracted. The true budget of JR:NGB could $117 million, i.e. $96 million PLUS the $21 million subsidies. The larger point is that this is not simple, and it would be better explained in the article instead (and page 19 includes a warning that Film LA are using sources such as Box Office Mojo which they freely admit understate budgets).
The Film LA report doesn't claim to provide a net budget figure and the synthesis could easily be wrong. Any pages claiming to have a net budget based on a Film LA report need to be checked, as they could also be making incorrect assumptions about the budget figures. -- 109.76.186.43 (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Page numbers can be confusing. The report includes a cover page, a page with an image, an index page, then an about page which at the bottom left corner of the page is clearly marked with the number "2". It isn't clear why the references to the report didn't use the page numbers included in the report itself.
It remains unclear why the figure $60 million] was listed instead of $65 million.Box Office Mojo listed the low figure of $60 million, not that they are particularly reliable.- I reiterate my earlier concerns that these figures are confusing and that it should be clearly explained in the article text before being added to the infobox, but anyone adding these figures should at least get the page number correct. -- 109.77.211.217 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Candice
[edit]The character Candice is listed here with the last name of Dutton. According to the film credits, she is simply "Candice". Since in the novel she is listed as "Candice Dayton", we may have a simple mistake and I think that it should be changed to simply "Candice" unless someone can point to a source that proves out "Dutton". Stephenaug1 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind... I rewatched the film and they clearly refer to her as Candice Dutton. So Dayton in the novels and Dutton in the film. Stephenaug1 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)