Talk:Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Untitled fifth Indiana Jones film into Untitled Indiana Jones film. I think that the content in the first identified article can easily incorporated into the context of the latter, and the secondly identified article is of a reasonable size that the merging not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally, the first article does not need the specifier of 'fifth' in its title. Everyone knows it is the fifth. "Untitled Indiana Jones film" is specific enough. Cheers m8s! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Its following naming conventions of untitled films in long running franchises, such as Untitled fourth Matrix film and Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film. And also, its best not to have two conflicting articles up simultaneously while this is debated Mitchy Power (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Each of those really don't need the number specification. Those specifiers can be in the article stating "this is the fifth installment in the Indiana Jones film series" but Untitled Indiana Jones film is all that is needed. When I moved my draft article to the mainspace, I did not know this other page was in the mainspace. When was it moved here? Regardless, the two pages need to be merged and this page needs a lot of work. The development section is extremely overly-detailed. It needs to be condensed/summarized greatly. I will merge some of my work from the previous draft here and see if we can refine this page. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some stuff needed to be cut (thanks for that), but some important details also got removed in the process, and I restored those. The current article seems like a good compromise. Also, it appears that your draft was actually copied from Indiana Jones#Untitled fifth film (2022), but without attribution. As for the title, I think Indiana Jones 5 (the common name) would be fine until the official title is unveiled. We can clarify that it's only the working title.  AJFU  (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not confirmed as yet, but a script seen by supporting artists on the Glasgow “New York” streets set is apparently titled “Indiana Jones and the Order of Elysium”. It’s only worth mentioning here in that it might provide something to search for confirmation on. Jock123 (Can’t seem to log into my account…)

@AJFU: The summary of Indiana Jones #Untitled fifth film (2022) was used as the references are reliable. However, I removed a large majority of the many details that are all over that section. Furthermore, the edits done to this page were done to remove the ridiculously long article. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hello, @DisneyMetalhead. Why have you restored the unverified writing credits? Mangold, in this message, does not mention Kasdan or Koepp. I have not seen any evidence that the current writers are carrying on from the work of the previous writers. Here, Mangold says that he and the Butterworths wrote a totally new script. Also, why is it necessary to have Indiana's full name here? None of the other film articles list him this way, and it doesn't seem like pertinent information for this particular article. I think the character's common name should be enough.  AJFU  (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@AJFU: as stated in my edit summary - the verified writers (by various sources) were added as they did previous drafts. As also stated in my summary, these should be listed until we have official credits to go off of. That is the only reason why I added the writers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

By "unverified", I meant that we have no confirmation that Kasdan and Koepp will be credited for their work. The new writers started from scratch, apparently discarding whatever came before. Anyway, someone has already removed the previous writers. As for Indiana's full name, I don't understand why we are making an exception for this one article.  AJFU  (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

word salad deciphering request

The following sentence: “The film depicts, as director James Mangold describes it, a ‘hero at sunset’, with the title character's age being an important plot point due to Jones not pretending he is getting old and keep being reliable in his latest adventure: ”

is a mangled mess. I would re-word it to be comprehensible but I actually can’t tell quite what it’s trying to say. Can someone please translate it into English syntax? 71.236.206.225 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

For fun I let ChatGPT attempt it:

The film, directed by James Mangold, portrays an aging hero, with the character's age playing a significant role in the plot. The title character, played by Jones, faces the reality of getting older but still manages to be reliable in his latest adventure.

Mike Allen 20:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning "in association with Paramount Pictures" in the lead paragraph

I feel like since Paramount is a big name and had been involved in the previous films, I feel we should put the exact quote "in association with Paramount Pictures" after the "produced by Walt Disney Pictures and Lucasfilm Ltd." line. IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures still has credit at the start of the film and there logo appears between Disney and Lucasfilm. 2604:3D08:9A7D:4600:F515:1584:DD53:ABE4 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Did the critics say that the Indiana Jones franchise had "run its course"?

Are you sure that critics said that it runs its course? Source? Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC) UPDATE: June 28, 2023 - This probably didn't aged well. :( --Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

LMAO, on opening night Thursday, this movie had a WORSE box office than The Flash, which preformed terrible. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What about the plot section is "too long or excessively detailed"?

As per title. The summary seems to be about the same length as other found on Wikipedia, and doesn't seem excessive. Cortador (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How many pieces of the Dial?

I think there was only two pieces. A plate from the bottom of the Aegean Sea was just a map to find the second piece. Auskultantti (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There where two big pieces and a also smaller central one that Voller wore as a necklace. 2003:C7:FF3D:C00:3857:B25B:82AF:94CD (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Tracking in China

Is there a reason or source why Disney thought this film would be carried by tracking in China? There has never been a Jones movie released in China. Sleyece (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Mission Impossible trivia

An editor insists on having this in the filming section. I've argued that the North Yorkshire Moors Railway already has a section devoted to its many film and TV appearances. The other editor argued that the info should be in this article since they already modified the Mission Impossible article to mention Dial of Destiny filming on the same railway track. However, I'm not sure that either film article needs to mention the other. They may have filmed in the same location roughly around the same time, but to my knowledge, neither production interfered with one another or had any impact on each other.

The editor says that It's a bit relevant to mention it here as this film used that film's stretch while it was suspended for a while. The sources in this article say that Mission Impossible had already filmed its train track scenes "weeks ago", prior to Dial of Destiny. I don't see how this is relevant.  AJFU  (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The applicable policies here are WP:V and WP:DUE. Is the claim sourced, and is it sourced within the context of the Dial of Destiny. If not, then it is unsourced trivia that should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Of the three cited sources, only two of them mention, briefly, that it's the same train track where Tom Cruise shot Mission: Impossible 7. I haven't come across any other Dial of Destiny sources that bother to mention this.  AJFU  (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Critical reception in lead section

Ryanisgreat4444, your recent edit is not okay unless "lukewarm" can be directly supported by a reliable source. Since there are thousands of sources on the film, not just any source will do. We need the most credible sources, and right now Rotten Tomatoes reports a 68% rating, which is well within "positive" territory (positive starts at 60%). So Rotten Tomatoes would contradict the claim you are making here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters really. This is a massive box office failure. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Budget

Deadline claims that the film cost 329 million to make before advertisement and so on. "Yesterday, I learned from a key source that Indiana Jones and the Dial Destiny before $100M in estimated P&A, cost a mindboggling $329M." I also remember reading that the 295 figure was from Disney documents so the 250 million range was always in doubt: https://deadline.com/2023/07/box-office-indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-1235427644/ The article has now been amended to "$300M-plus". How it looked like before: https://i.redd.it/r2h7kmcgjk9b1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.229 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

[I'm not experienced in this, so I don't know for sure,] But I think just leaving the budget at 300M [or 300M+] until a reliable source can properly say the correct number of millions is the right call. Parelance (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your sources almost all universally changed all your numbers, you're fabricating your numbers to clearly favor the film, why? 2601:2C6:827F:1080:9450:AFE:AF0E:99E1 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea, like I said, I'm new to the editing realm considering sources and stuff. Thought it was somewhat of a compromise of sorts, sorry. Parelance (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well we know for a fact it cost far more than $250 million. To access its tax credit Lucasfilm has to file accounts to the British Government, which are publicly available. The precise cost from the first-quarter statements is $294.7 million (which is where the $295 million figure comes from), and this was while post-production was still going on. So the final budget of the film has to be over $294.7 million, so when the autumn statements are submitted I suspect Deadline will be proven right on the $300 million+ figure. I wish the trades like Variety and Deadline would just go and check the UK tax filings themselves. You can get exact figures, no need for all this guesswork. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry honey but nope. Disney said that Indiana Jones 5 cost $295 million before tax credit. $329 million was all the cost in total. So 295 net cost and 329 million total cost. 79.32.218.213 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a Telecom Italia IP address, how are you Carlo Galanti? We'll have to see about getting that IP range block of yours extended... Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Anon… this just isn’t true. In fact, there was an article in the last 24 hours that makes it clear the 300+ mil number doesn’t include the marketing budget. https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(Important quote excerpt)”The reported budget for the movie is around $300 million and, typically, a movie would need to make 2.5 times its budget before it starts hitting profit.That factors in a marketing spend that, for Indy 5, was reported by Deadline to be roughly $100 million. It means the movie would have to make at least $750 million before it would become profitable.”(end quote)

2601:282:8100:32A0:B806:65F1:27D8:8D79 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are the numbers on this film so far off?

This film has been picked apart on the news, and as of now the film is only estimated to make 130 million for the entire opening weekend, yet they posted 152 million, which is a flat out lie? Further the movie cost 320 to make on the low-end but they posted 250 million. Are they padding the numbers to keep share holders from asking questions? 2601:2C6:827F:1080:9450:AFE:AF0E:99E1 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the 150m figure is for the whole of July 4th holiday weekend, whereas the 130m figure is for the normal 3-day weekend. This is fairly common practise. As for the budget, I believe the earlier estimate of 250–300m was just mis-reported by the media. It was reported during post-production that Lucasfilm had filed accounts for $294.7 million, so the 250–300m was correct at the time of reporting, but it was still in production. The final cost will definitely be over 300 million, and almost certainly over 320 million, and I wouldn't be that surprised if the final price runs close to 400 million once Disney file the invoices for the post-production work (which will include the bulk of the special effects bill). Very sad that Indy goes out on a flop. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say the filmmakers miscalculated the range of the audience. Younger movie goers may not be as familiar or as attached to the Indiana Jones franchise, which started about 40 years ago. They are more invested into the Marvel and DC universes. Ticket prices are so high, that those who are interested in seeing it will probably wait to stream it online for less money. The opening revenue is at the lower end of the studio's projection, so not officially a flop. It may pick up over the summer.PNW Raven (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It takes time for the numbers to go up, you can't just expect it to be very high on the first day of it's release date.Matt Campbell (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For a big summer blockbuster opening on a holiday weekend you would expect it to post its best results in the first weekend. The only time that does not hold true is at Christmas when families hold back. I'm afraid the only way is down now. By way of comparison the previous film made 50% more over its opening weekend, so the best case scenario for Dial of Destiny is that it has strong holds and finishes in the 500–600 mil range, which will put it on track to breaking even. Betty Logan (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a massive box office bomb. It's truly hilarious that this thread is about arguing how much less than the budget was the box office for this film. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt.

One has to wonder how many are studio plants or faux-editors shilling on behalf of the corporate interests. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here is a "faux editor" who is "shilling" for the studio. However, there are a few anonymous editors who too quickly wanted to post box office results in a biased/slanted and a less-than neutral manner, without taking many factors into consideration. The movie underperformed in its opening weekend, but the final results will need to be assessed over the summer. There have been other films that started out slowly, but picked up later and made a decent profit. PNW Raven (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven Well, not this movie. Why? Because, like “The Flash”, it was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and suffered the same fate out of the opening gate as part of a larger trend—- it’s as simple as that. That ridiculous 300 mil budget for essentially an uninspired “Lara Croft” redo (i.e. Most of the money went to the de-aging effects which audiences also didn’t really find all that impressive or necessary) a big gamble for any film on essentially an over-the-hill action star and a strip-mined series where no one was clamoring for a sequel, especially when the last one jumped the shark, er, ‘nuked the fridge’?

But compounding the problem is, again, many factors accounted for as part of a larger trend of tentpole franchise movies suffering serious fatigue, and Indy 5 is already being bested by smaller films as soon as this weekend (i.e. the latest Insidious film) further cutting into its already limp box office.

All of that makes it easy for the press to call this.

Overly-expensive movies like John Carter, Solo:A Star Wars, the latest Terminator movie bombed out of the opening gate. So it really isn’t that big a surprise. It happens more often than you may care to admit.

There is no arbitrary hard and fast rule for how a movie bombs or succeeds. The many sources in the press labeling this a bomb ARE taking into account many factors involved, as the aforementioned reasons illustrate.

Our job is to simply reflect the consensus in the press and report on it, not offer our own spin, analysis, or personal interpretation of it as your suggesting, which would be a clear WP:OR violation for introducing said original research.

I get it, some of us are fans of this stuff. And what a lousy way for Indy to compete his saga! Rather than going out on a high-note he’s going down with a bonafide flop—- all the more ironic when these films originally a long time ago in a cinematic galaxy far FAR away (pun intended) used to be the box office gold standard.

But we wouldn’t be having this conversation if the film was a hit, with some saying to wait awhile until we can be sure.

It’s not fun, but blame the press then if you think they got it wrong. That’s not our concern, where Wikipedia’s mission is to essentially archive journalism in real-time. 2601:282:8100:32A0:BD51:DEEB:62E6:80DD (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that very long explanation which has little to do with my previous response. Let's be clear here. I did not "spin" anything or offer any analysis about why it is underperforming. My point was, some editors were all too eager and insistent to label the film as a "box office bomb" when it was barely out of the gate. The film may well be a huge financial loss for whatever reasons, but it is too soon to make a final judgment until the movie has completed its initial theatrical run. That is when it should be evaluated. Instead of cherry picking sensationalistic language like "huge box office bomb", it should have been worded here in a more neutral encyclopedic style. It was also inappropriate and insulting to accuse editors of being "movie studio shills" and it had no basis. The ONLY thing I am objecting to is the wording. PNW Raven (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven No, YOU are missing the point, see WP:Pointy.

Our job is NOT to personally “evaluate” or analyze. Hence the violation of personal analysis/research ergoWP:OR Our Wikipedian JOB is to offer the documented-facts as they reflect and report the consensus in the press. The many MANY reliable journalists and sources don’t seem to think it’s “too soon” to call this movie a bomb. They are offering analysis, factors, history, and reasoning as to why. There is literally no one in the press holding onto the hope this film will succeed. If this was a case of “cherry picking” then I would imagine there would be several sources making your case for you. There isn’t really any for that matter. A lot of films get reported on as a flop in the opening weeks. Look at “The Flash” or the latest Terminator film. It sucks but it happens a lot actually.

There’s a difference between “neutrality” and what you are proposing, which in your case is a WP:false balance, WP:Synthesis and WP:Undue. So, no, we don’t engage in personal analysis of how we feel this should go down, hence WP:OR. Our “original research” on the matter isn’t a reliable source here. You disagree with how the press is handling it, and we aren’t the press. If that’s not “shilling” or “spinning” then I don’t know what is 🤷‍♂️ 2601:282:8100:32A0:BD51:DEEB:62E6:80DD (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have totally missed everything. I don't have any problem with how the press handles reports on the film's earnings. I only care about stating facts. The "cherry picking" refers to certain editors actively looking to cite any online source that used their preferred language, which showed a certain bias. Most legitimate online sources have been more objective and used less florid language. It is certainly acceptable to say the movie underperformed, did not meet expectations, etc. This is an encyclopedia and there is a required style. PNW Raven (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven Baloney,😂there is even an Wikipedia article titled “box office bombs” see Box-office bomb and countless wiki-articles that use the term regularly. There is precedence here.

The issue you are addressing is one for ‘the arbcom team & arbitration’ if you don’t like how Wikipedia on a whole reports on it. Typically if it’s good enough for the press and a newspaper, it’s good enough for Wikipedia.

Like the debacle involving “The Flash” I don’t see evidence that the press is handling this with kids gloves, as you claim. Because of Marvel-fatigue and franchise-fatigue they are in fact enthusiastically reporting on this rock bottom moment. See [[1]] That’s the scoop here!

Again, you are making a fallacious WP:Pointy case for WP:Synthesis, a WP:false balance, with a proposed WP:weasel words approach based on WP:OR—- all of which are violations, all of which are ‘a shiny textbook example’ of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue, which is starting to flirt with WP:Gaming. How about we don’t do that?

tl;dr version—- At the very least, watering-down an article as you propose in the name of corporate self-interests and ‘movie-fanboi-fundamentalism’ is an WP:Censor agenda. I guess I have more faith in the readers and our audience than you do. 2601:282:8100:32A0:3CE4:164E:60DF:A0BA (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven P.S. Don’t conveniently forget, that the big exception here maybe that you are overlooking is the simple fact that it’s one of the most expensive movies ever made after all that money wasted on years of de-aging f/x. That’s a metaphor for some studios stuck living in the past where franchises like this used to be kings, not pariahs.

When big box office debacles occur like “Heavens Gate” or “John Carter” or “Cutthroat Island” they are typically representative of a larger trend or news story. Indy 5 is following a box office flop trend that began with Antman 3, exploded with “The Flash”, and is peaking with Indiana Jones as a casualty of tentpole franchise fatigue. That’s the scoop and the big story here. It’s dishonest for you to suggest it just may be the case of a one-off movie “underperforming” when the consensus in the press offers mountains of analysis and reporting that says otherwise. 2601:282:8100:32A0:3CE4:164E:60DF:A0BA (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven UPDATE: Here is one of several articles that just dropped in the last 24 hours alone doubling-down on their reporting that Indy 5 is “a box office bomb/flop” confirming (again) what we already knew DAYS ago (listing thoughtful reasons and analysis, demonstrating it’s “NOT too soon” to make this call) https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/ “HEADLINE: The Reasons Why Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has been a box-office flop”

(Important quote excerpt)”That factors in a marketing spend that, for Indy 5, was reported by Deadline to be roughly $100 million. It means the movie would have to make at least $750 million before it would become profitable.”(end quote)

2601:282:8100:32A0:5D8E:3B92:39AD:CA5E (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

May I remind all users that "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". I invite you to continue your interesting discussion on your respective user talk pages. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Technopat Roger that 🫡 2601:282:8100:32A0:3CE4:164E:60DF:A0BA (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Buzz Aldrin - played by Bryn Thomas Neil Armstrong - played Jefferson King Michael Collins - played by Luke Cloud Lasthattrick (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources for those credits?$chnauzer 15:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hiya - we were uncredited but there are two references online plus photographic evidence from several sources that can all be found on jeffersonkingactor insta account. The online photos (shown on jeffersonkingactor Instagram) show it’s me (alongside photos taken in the evening with other actors/extras). http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-063023a-indiana-jones-dial-destiny-apollo-space-history.html

https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny

hope this helps. It was a brilliant film to be involved in especially representing someone so famous ! Lasthattrick (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Box-Office Bomb?

Is this movie can be considered a box-office bomb on it's first week of release? Probably not, because it is still in many movie theaters. According to the Wikipedia page of a Box-office bomb, it is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. This movie is still on its theatrical run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JymSeikenFlame (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@JymSeikenFlame Untrue. Some films bomb out of the starting gate. Like “John Carter” or as recently as “The Flash”. The reason the press can call this D.O.A. is because of the simple fact that there’s an exception to the rule here in that it is one of the most expensive movies ever made. That de-aging debacle really squandered a lot over many years of over-production in post.

Incidentally see film MOS for etiquette on this. You are not pointing to some hard and fast rule here. The rule we do go with is WP:citation and many MANY reputable sources are labeling Indy 5 “a box office bomb” with thoughtful analysts and facts. They are saying it’s part of a larger trend of superhero and franchise fatigue that began with Antman 3 and came to a head with “The Flash”. You won’t really find anyone in the press making your case for you or even echoing your POV here. This is more something you find from fanbois on Reddit.

Our job at Wikipedia is to reflect that aforementioned press consensus and NOT offer our personal analysis or interpretation of any of this as that is considered “original research” and a WP:OR violation. 2601:282:8100:32A0:E541:1A80:2F13:3EB1 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There is some issues with the references related to the "box-office bomb" part of this article.

1. The article from The Guardian barely talks about Indiana Jones and focus more on The Flash and the reasons why it failed at the box office.

2. Screen Rant article is more of a subjective point of view than an objective reason why this movie supposedly flops. They even mention a "commercial failure". However, on the main Wikipedia article, "on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 69% of 349 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.4/10". This cannot objectively be considered a commercial failure.

3. Coming Soon article mention "the recently-released Indiana Jones 5 underperforming at the box office". It does not mention any box-office bomb at this moment, only that the movie underperformed.

4. Deadline article compare Dial of Destiny to the "Disaster ‘Superman Returns’", but does not mention a box-office bomb.

The majority of these sources do not labeling Indy 5 “a box office bomb” with thoughtful analysts and facts. If Wikipedia's job is to "reflect that aforementioned press consensus", it should have better sources to reflect the "box-office bomb" of this movie. In fact, MANY reputable sources mention that Dial of Destiny is underperforming at box office. Only few sources mention a "box-office bomb", which is the main problem here.

JymSeikenFlame (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s very WP:Pointy of you.

Again, you are trying to filter and spin and synthesize those articles through your own personal analysis/original research. Which is why WP:OR was put into place. So, your personal take on those sources are irrelevant, and those articles are not making the case for an underperforming film that might prevail(your personal POV) but rather THOSE PRESS CITATIONS are QUITE CLEARLY SAYING that “Indy 5” is yet another “flop” or “bomb” as part of a larger trend of bombs as recent as “The Flash”—- as a consequence of superhero fatigue. Read the following thoughtful analysis: https://variety.com/2023/film/columns/superhero-fatigue-the-flash-1235648428/amp/

Our job isn’t to spin or indict or judge the citations. What you are doing is flirting with WP:Gaming, proposing WP:weasel words to promote your WP:Npov agenda, with fallacious WP:synthesis (il)logic, while deliberately smokescreening with an insincere plea for neutrality which is just a fallacious WP:false balance wolf in ‘neutrality sheep-clothing’—- ALL of which are violations.

If you wanna keep it real, then (again) it’s simple. Indy 5 is one of the most expensive movies ever made for a strip mined film franchise that’s not only an ‘over-the-hill IP property’ but one that no one was really asking to see more of. It doesn’t help that audiences are plainly just burnt out on 4 decades of blockbuster films after recently overdosing on Marvel movies. That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number). So where it stands now, with its current trajectory, makes it a no-brainer for analysts in the press. That the press as a whole haven’t pushed harder has more to do with ‘being polite’ given Ford’s age as an elder of Hollywood and his impressive legacy.

tl;dr version- Your issue is with the press and their appraisal and judgement of all of this so far. I don’t see ANY reputable sources in said press corp even remotely making your case for you. This ‘debate’ is between us and not them. So our job is NOT to put in our own two cents per WP:OR and WP:soapbox but I expect you are too WP:pointy to care. So noted. 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

JymSeikenFlame is not violating anything. They are discussing whether this film is a box office bomb or not. To say JymSeikenFlame is being disruptive, and, somehow, is a user who is almost promoting bad faith, is a very disrespectful and unprofessional behavior. The Talk Page is here to make sure contributors can TALK when it is necessary. It I also used to debate. And they are providing arguments regarding their claim. Not just an opinion.

You seem to be the only user who is complaining about them here. If you cannot be polite to other contributors, who know their job as well, you should not engage in discussion with them. WP:Don't be rude. Higher Further Faster (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Higher Further Faster I never said he was “violating this or that.” I said following through on his fallacious-thinking would be.

AGF works both ways, eh? You brazenly-claim I’m “the only one who feels this way” when the editing history of the article itself says otherwise. And Wikipedia isn’t a popularity contest. Hence, there is also something to be said for you going ‘too far’ as to Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith or WP:AOBF. Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations.

tl;dr version—- Maybe it’s simply the case of my horse being higher than your WP:soapbox. Nothing personal. Happy editing. 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. He did not violate anything. So there is no problem. Which also means there is no need to be rude to this contributor, calling them WP:pointy. Higher Further Faster (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Using Wikipedian-language and lingo like WP:Pointy exists precisely to avoid what you are (falsely) alleging—- as an alternative to “being rude”. How about you don’t casting aspersions which is itself “rude” because again it’s a form of WP:AOBF?? 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I only said you were calling this user pointy, which you did, as you said, "That’s very WP:Pointy of you [...] I expect you are too WP:pointy to care," which I found rude. I do not see where I wrote that you were trying to hurt Wikipedia or anyone deliberately. One can be rude without being aware of it.

As I said, "there is no problem." Higher Further Faster (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Take care. ✌️ 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've got little stake in this strange edit controversy, but I'd like to point out that criticizing a user for trying to "filter and spin" while then clearly inserting your own personal views about it being "a strip mined film franchise that’s not only an ‘over-the-hill IP property’ but one that no one was really asking to see more of" is a bit rich. If we are going to argue for source-based objectivity here, then we should only be willing to actually adhere to it ourselves. Cheers. 2600:8800:280:33A3:6D8D:C6D5:2AF2:4000 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been endless reverting of this particular section by various editors. If there is to be a consensus of editors about what the wording should be, then I prefer that the phrase, "box office bomb", NOT be used this early in the film's run while it is still earning revenue. If everyone can simply state whether they do or do not want it used, please state it, and the majority should decide.PNW Raven (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven Then you will have to start a proper RFC voting process here. Since it had to be open to editors AND lurkers alike. Then when an admin properly closes it, THEN that counts as a proper consensus. You can’t just invoke online mob-rule with a dynamic plurality. It would violate WP:Undue. In other words, there are limits. You can’t for instance get a majority to agree with you that ‘the earth is flat’ and expect such misinformation to be canonized in an article.

The irony, though, is that by the time an RFC voting process properly concludes—- which takes typically a few weeks at best—- then you have had certainly given this enough time. It will likely be moot as to whether this was a box office bomb.

But go for it if you think we need a proper vote. Just keep it proper. 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I said "if" there is to be a consensus, as having a consensus was mentioned in one of the edit history comments. The editors who have been actively involved in the back-and-forth reverting should be the ones to initiate this. I am stating now what my preference is. Otherwise, these editors are engaging in an edit war. PNW Raven (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And the remedies for that, again, are a proper RFC voting process, or an WP:ANI if you are no longer invested in your original proposal to seek consensus—- because you now think it’s devolved into an all out “edit-war”. But having carefully reviewed the article’s history I don’t see any indication of a WP:battleground because an admin already stepped in days ago to protect the page, and that seems to have done the trick.

A spirited-debate here shouldn’t be confused with editing warring. Everything seems fine beyond a little quarreling here and there. Peace ✌️ 2601:282:8100:32A0:E08F:CBE9:28A0:AD24 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The page protection ends on July 15th, so we shall have to wait and see if the reverting resumes. To be clear, the "edit warring" I'm referring to is not about a 'spirited debate'. It's the active and continual reverting of an article's text between multiple editors, which is not allowed. PNW Raven (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven Agreed.

P.S. And part of the problem here, I'm gathering, is your non-journalistic perspective if I am to AGF. Remember, there are enough sources by this point calling this a "box office bomb" or "flop", for better or for worse, and offering analysis that this is part of a larger trend (i.e. the end of the Marvel-comic super blockbuster fad). Press articles are not absolutist by nature, hence the kids gloves they use with this stuff outta respect for a Hollywood elder like Harrison Ford and his legion of fans.

However, the rub here is that there are NO articles making your case for you. None. I don't see ANY articles arguing that "this may or may not be a hit" and "maybe it will turn a dime, given enough time" NOR anyone saying "there is an argument among analysts and reporters about what constitutes a flop regarding old-school blockbusters and new-age comic-book movies". Basically we have, articles calling the movie "a bomb", then articles discussing the "de-aging f/x" and "Ford's legacy" and now articles talking about "low-budget horror films doing surprise business in the vacuum left by Indy 5", etc. But, again, NO article advocating for, or even presenting, your POV. So, the idea of not including these sources because you simply don't like it, isn't enough. Even if your reasoning may be sound.

So here is what we are faced with: It's either your 'sources-clearly-spelling-out-your-case'(i.e. which dont exist at this time) VS. the articles calling it a success/failure(i.e.which do exist). Leaving out the 'already-verified-citations-as-is' would require a proper prevailing consensus vetted on the talk page-- with an RFC about why we should ignore them. But it can't just be, as you have suggested: 'sources/citations-of-the-information' VS. your personal interpretation of said information... which is why we have the policy against WP:OR as it too often or not would lead to a form of WP:CENSOR if you had your way based upon your reasoning here. Maybe the press IS jumping the gun on this, but we have to trust the readers enough to figure that out and hold them accountable. You seem to have done a decent job in making up your own mind. That is an example of wikipedia working IMHO.

Hope that explains it better, and thank you for the spirited debate. Take care 2601:282:8100:32A0:4986:E412:9BBF:F7C2 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the main issue here. When people says that "there are enough sources by this point calling this a "box office bomb" or "flop"", sadly with the 4 sources (The Guardian, Screen Rant, Coming Soon, Deadline), only one clearly says that. The other does not mention specifically that the movie is a box-office bomb. We cannot interpretate what they might have said without some specific citations.

On Wikipedia, we need valid sources to claim something. The mentionned sources does not seems to reflect the majority and the consensus in the press does NOT says it's a box-office bomb at this moment. If many reliable journalists and sources don’t seem to think it’s “too soon” to call this movie a bomb, we need proper sources to confirm that. At this moment, it's not the case with the 4 sources. By exemple, the title from the source from Coming Soon is "Why ‘Kathleen Kennedy Fired’ Is Trending After Indiana Jones 5". If you look in the article, there is nothing about a box-office bomb. And for the one on The Guardian, except with the Clickbait Title, nowhere in the article mentions that Dial of Destiny is a box-office bomb.

I'm sure there has been endless reverting of this particular section by various editors, for various reasons. Some may want to erase it because they don't want to think that this movie may be a flop, other absolutely wants to keep it for personal reasons, etc.

Personnaly, I'm not against the fact that this article mentions that this movie is underperforming at the box-office, which is something that is currently happening right now and it's a pretty concensus among journalists and specialists. However, saying that it's a box-office bomb while the movie is still in theaters does not make sense (in my perspective), because it may be possible that the movie will get at least 600 million $ at the box-office in some months (even if there is a little hope). In that case, I also prefer that the phrase, "box-office bomb", be not used this early in the film's run while it is still earning revenue. Anyway, what should we do at this moment?

JymSeikenFlame (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@JymSeikenFlame Just leave it as it is for now since the plurality of sources by the press have given their verdict. Your interpretation of said sources is WP:OR and if you followed through on it that would equate to WP:Censor. We report the information with the sources and let the reader decide. We don’t filter it though our personal analysis, values and personal feelings—- acting as some sort of sensitivity police for the readers, like some committee board for corporate propaganda.

How uncomfortable we personally feel about it is irrelevant here. We are directly attributing the sources. And it’s better with direct quotes/verbiage. Again, you are suggesting WP:weasel words and a wp:false balance as a remedy for an agenda based on WP:OR—- which most of your concerns come from.

If you just can’t live with it then I suggest doing a proper RFC-voting arbitration here. However those typically takes weeks to resolve before an admin comes in to give his verdict, by which point this will be moot.

It’s kinda moot and old news already. With Mission Impossible opening soon this really will be ‘ancient history’ (pun intended) sooner than you think. Disney really dropped the ball with this one. I know, it’s a shame. I’m a huge Indy fan and saw “Raiders of the Lost Ark” as a kid 5 times. It was my first real movie experience in many ways. I was really rooting for this one.

Just move on IMO. That’s what I do. Take care. 2601:282:8100:32A0:89BA:E5F6:EAE9:39AD (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, inserting your own personal opinion on the subject while criticizing others about inserting their personal opinion is not helping matters whatsoever. Nor is the claim "plurality of sources by the press have given their verdict" when the argument being made is that the sources chosen do not actually back up the claim being made in the article. Your responses seem to take your side of the argument as self-evident instead of actually engaging with the discussion. 2600:8800:280:33A3:94D7:C7E6:B279:47AC (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@PNW Raven Well, if a full-blown edit war breaks out then another stricter page protection will likely be reapplied or a WP:ANI will be filed. But my guess is with other movies like the Mission Impossible juggernaut opening and Barbie that this will fade in attention and controversy. Case in point— with the second weekend now open and Indy 5 being toppled from the #1 spot by the 5th sequel of a low budget horror franchise, there have been MORE articles that have come out doubling down on its reporting that Indy 5 is not only a box office bomb BUT will not make its money back, period… not even globally. So, I’m guessing this is already fading in the rear view mirror in terms of drama 🎭

2601:282:8100:32A0:89BA:E5F6:EAE9:39AD (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@JymSeikenFlame @PNW Raven UPDATE: Here is one of several articles that just dropped in the last 24 hours alone doubling-down on their reporting that Indy 5 is “a box office bomb/flop” confirming (again) what we already knew DAYS ago (listing thoughtful reasons and analysis, demonstrating it’s “NOT too soon” to make this call) https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/ “HEADLINE: The Reasons Why Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has been a box-office flop”

(Important quote excerpt)”That factors in a marketing spend that, for Indy 5, was reported by Deadline to be roughly $100 million. It means the movie would have to make at least $750 million before it would become profitable.”(end quote)

2601:282:8100:32A0:5D8E:3B92:39AD:CA5E (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I am restoring my previous post, which was deleted, as it directly relates to an editor being obstructive: "I am wondering why an anonymous editor, whose link does not show any editing history, is so insistent about this one specific issue. There seems to be some agenda here. And please debate with the editors who were actually doing the reverting rather than one who merely stated an opinion and preference." -- That was not a "personal attack" as you claimed when deleting my earlier comment. This is "on topic" regarding this discussion about the article. You can openly dispute whatever I say here, but do NOT delete it again. PNW Raven (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Deemed a box office bomb" now make more sense, as some journalists claim that. It may changed in some weeks, until the movie will not be in the theaters anymore and when the final numbers of the box-office will be released. However, I'm wondering if it still needed to be absolutely mentionned here, since it is still not a concensus among journalists and specialists. Also, I still confirm that the sources needed to be checked, as some of them don't mention anything related to a "box-office bomb". I agree to have a debate about these subjects.

JymSeikenFlame (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the term "box office bomb" has a different and opposite meaning in Great Britain and presumably other Commonwealth nations. When something in Britain is called a "bomb" it means it is a huge success. As this is an internationally accessed online encyclopedia this can create confusion. A more generic description such as "failure," "underperforming", "disappointment," etc., would be better understood. My understanding is that Wikipedia prefers following the British style of grammar, punctuation, and spelling. PNW Raven (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note that there is no real preference for any particular national variety of English per MOS:ENGVAR. Typically we tie the grammar, vocab, and spelling with the national variety most closely associated to the article topic, so in this case, American English (see MOS:TIES). As for "bomb" vs. "disappointment", the latter would work just fine. We don't have to use the exact phrasing from the sources, although it's worth mentioning that there is a box-office bomb article that sees frequent updates. Perhaps you should raise that point there on its talk page. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

90.240.93.215 (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You can't answer your own edit request. Especially when it is so vague. $chnauzer 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Budget range

CoffeeMeAlready has repeatedly removed the sourced budget range (low of $250 million per Deadline and high of $400 million per IndieWire) and listed budget as $300 million. While this may be an aggregate, Wikipedia’s rules are pretty clear about budgets: don’t cherry-pick, list all cited figures. Don’t think it’s malicious, just misinformed. So just to avoid myself getting flagged for edit warring, want to take it here so it’s documented and anyone whose can offer their two cents. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAces Please, then, at least seek consensus first for this odd esoteric edit(s) that finds NO precedent on ANY other film page.Since when do we synthesize badly-sourced data to use “ranges”?!? per WP:synthesis, WP:Undue and WP:OR.

See below for the most recent UPDATED source(s), parroting the plurality of sources and the prevailing consensus in the press https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(Excerpt)“That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”(End quote)

If you don’t think that’s cogent-enough or specific enough, then per WP:BURDEN, please back up YOUR very vague claim with specifics. Please also read MOS:FILM, which says "do not synthesize…Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." Cheers indeed! CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A budget range is advocated by Template:Infobox film, provided it is justified by the sources. Deadline put its initial estimate at $250–295 million and later revised its estimate to $300 million-plus. On that basis I think we can safely ignore the lower figure per WP:AGEMATTERS. Indiewire places the cost slightly higher at $350–400 million. The Indiewire estimate is consistent with the revised Deadline estimate. The only contradiction is the earlier $250–295 range, which Deadline now acknowledges it low-balled. I don't believe this constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS; synthesis is when you combine sources to reach a conclusion that is not supported by any of the sources. That is not what is happening here: the range simply encompasses the different estimates, and there is no part of the range that is refuted by both of the sources. Based on Deadline and Indiewire it would be correct to say that the film cost over $300 million, which personally I could live with. However, I think we can do slightly better because Indiewire also provides an upper-bound for its estimate at $400 million. Therefore I believe "over $300 million" and "$300–400 million" are both consistent with the sources available, consistent with the Infobox guidelines, and do not violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think $295 (the oft-cited number) through $400 million (the peak) is a fair range. Deadline itself isn’t advocating for the lowballed $250 figure, and it’s the only time I’ve seen anything reported below the $295 million.

TropicAces (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAces@Betty Logan That’s fine and good, but then we are discussing production budget, or combined budget? Where it becomes WP:synthesis is when that becomes a pretext for an agenda-based attempt to remove necessary information and context for the reader. Doing so gives the (false) impression that this film might break even, or could be used to downplay its lack of box office success, when ‘it’s very lack of success’ is VERY notable and newsworthy here. It’s really all the press and people are talking back, because it’s part of a larger trend of franchise and Marvel fatigue that began to peak with “The Flash” and is destabilizing Disney and Hollywood.

Again, to quote a cogent-source, “That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”

I’d be fine with calling it at $295 million, for the budget production (even though it’s closer to $326 million), but the problem with ‘a range’ (especially THAT range) is that it ignores that the ‘total cost’ was at least in the ballpark of $400 mil, and that’s a conservative estimate. Then when the movie has earned back its production budget, as “The Flash” already has, then come the spin-doctors trolling these kind of pages arguing, “Then how can it be one the biggest box office bombs ever when it exceeded its budget?!” This is avoided by simply ignoring the vagueness of early, unreliable sources and being direct with the citations themselves per the etiquette of MOS:FILM.

As this story has evolved, so have the sources (i.e. like the aforementioned one) and it’s clearly what they are saying here. And we should echo that common sense obvious post-mortem rather than allowing the article to be disrupted to make a WP:point on the basis of shoddy earlier reporting from one or two sources. All of it reeks of WP:gaming to waterdown or downplay the embarrassing truth for Indy fans that not only is this the lowest grossing Indy film but also one of the biggest box office disappointments in recent film history. Unfortunately, sad or not, that is what is WP:Notable here considering the conclusion of the franchise, Ford’s legacy, and the high expectations here, and I say that speaking as a lifelong fan of Indiana Jones who was rooting for this, but it is what it is. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The infobox budget is purely production, not including marketing. Given the current cost of shooting blockbusters and Disney’s eagerness to overspend, it’s likely Dial cost closer to $400 than $300 million, but that’s not up to us to decide/decode. I think listing it as “$295–400 million” in the infobox is a fair figure. TropicAces (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAces I’d be fine with that then as long as you don’t remove already sourced-content honestly pointing out that ‘that range’ doesn’t include marketing costs. Otherwise it’s misleading because we already know the total cost is a MINIMUM of $400 million given that the production cost was no less than $300 million NOT including the additional $100+ million in marketing. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A film budget by definition does not include marketing costs; it is the negative cost of the film. If you want to provide some further context for these figures the lead could easily be written to state that the budget to produce the film was $295–400 million with a further estimated $100 million spent on marketing it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We can create a note (similar to the film’s inclusion on the most expensive page) about “Variety listed the production budget at $295 million, Deadline reported the film cost $300+, and IndieWire at $350-400 million, before marketing”, that way there’s no confusion for the quick-scrollers TropicAces (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan @TropicAces I agree that production costs don’t normally need to include marketing.

I’m simply standing firmly by my position that if ‘a range’ is used, that we do NOT omit content that, in this case, says directly (in the voice of the citations) that “this doesn’t include marketing costs” because the context is VERY necessary here considering that ‘the hows and the whys’ of mega-blockbusters is what is WP:Notable about this article, given that it is one of the most expensive movies EVER made and part of a larger trend of these big movies doing poor business.

As far as a note goes, I don’t know what is meant by that. It should be clear, not something you have to pass over with your mouse/finger to see or something buried in the footnotes. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The "not including marketing costs" statement is unnecessary, especially in the lead. This is already understood from the term "production budget", which is focused on the costs surrounding the production of the film. The lead should be concisely written and not waste real estate defining basic terminology. If there is documented confusion in that regard, then it can be defined further (with necessary citations) down in the body of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I second your point. Stating the production budget does not include marketing costs conflated two distinct concepts. As per my point above, a figure for the marketing costs could be given separately. Also, in the most recent version, the stated budget in the lead is now contradicting the figure in the infobox, and not representative of coverage of the budget. As I have commented above at #Budget, the $295 million figure is a baseline figure from accounts submitted to the British tax body while it was in post-production. In other words, the true figure will almost certainly be higher (Deadline have revised the estimate of the budget to "$300 million-plus"), so this needs to be clear in the lead as it is in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan I agree we should use the $300 million rather than the $295. Good catch. EDIT: Correction now implemented with accurate numbers. Thx again. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

CoffeeMeAlready, please explain what you are doing in this edit. You removed nearly the whole paragraph without explanation, and you keep trying to reintroduce the term "market" or "marketing". We don't yet know those costs, so please stop with the attempts to add it in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 What "am I doing here"?? How about you be WP:CIVIL and AGF by WP:OWNing up to your own role in this bizarre OCD crusade of yours?lol

I'm fine with leaving out the "marketing costs" as long as you don't try to WP:synthesize ALL the sources (which tbh are simply not saying what you are saying) to make your WP:POINT. The WP:Compromise would be to follow MOS:FILMLEAD, and, again, not synthesize the material until those specifics you are clamoring for magically show up, which I doubt will happen here.

P.S.I actually liked how you found a path to address what was bothering me about all this in the first place with a nice WP:MIDDLEGROUND, intentional or otherwise. So needless to say I was surprised when you got triggered. Promise you, it's nothing personal, dude. I'm here presumably for the same reason as you, to make awesome wikipedia articles.CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Asking "What you are doing here" after you removed most of a paragraph without explanation is not UNCIVIL. It's a straight-forward question that you still have yet to answer. No worries if that was a mistake on your part. The paragraph has been restored. As for WP:OWN, perhaps that was a mistake as well, but hopefully you are not implying that I'm demonstrating ownership behavior. Taking issues to the talk page and seeking consensus is the opposite of OWN. Take care in levying such accusations without sufficient evidence; doing so carelessly can WP:BOOMERANG and be interpreted as aggressive behavior. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 I feel like this is largely a moot point by now. Spin your snark anyway you like. This is bothering me a lot less than you realize. Hopefully you can say the same. Thank you for your contributions, in any case. Take care brother CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: IndieWire source

The Indie Wire article that's referenced for the budget figure in the infobox (https://www.indiewire.com/news/box-office/indiana-jones-box-office-flop-disney-movie-faces-massive-loss-1234882402/) doesn't give us "$350-400 million before marketing", instead it states:

"And then there’s “Indiana,” the franchise’s most expensive film with a reported budget and marketing cost over $400 million."

(Could it be that the article has been edited/corrected afterwards?) So, the only time "$400 million" are mentioned, it's an estimate of the production and marketing budget combined. And I cant' find the $350 million estimate in any of the articles that are linked here. Therefore the production budget should have a range of $295-300 million, because those are the only numbers the listed sources provide us with.@Betty Logan@TropicAces@CoffeeMeAlready Kon-el (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The article originally said something along the lines of “a budget of $350–400 million.” I’ll reword the note. Good catch. TropicAces (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have been altered. The original version of the article is archived here. If Indiewire is no longer standing by its numbers then the range needs to be altered. Deadline only put the budget at "$300 million plus". Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That is quite concerning when a source modifies their article content without providing a disclaimer. At least a "last updated" date at the top would be expected. Makes me want to rely on said source much less moving forward, especially for budget claims. Great they made the correction, but bad in how they did it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not good form. Deadline changed their article, but at least they did so honestly: they kept the original estimate and included a new source that stated the movie cost over $300 million. If something turns out to be wrong, or more accurate information comes along after the article is published I would rather they update than ignore it, but like you say there should be a disclaimer of some kind. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)