Talk:Annihilation (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mr.Glassman22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Condensed soup

Because he wanted to take the story in his own direction, he did not read the other two books in order not to be influenced by them.[12][13][14]

I tried rephrasing that sentence but my changed was reverted (and other minor changes too but I didn't think any of it was a bold change). In what I believe was a good faith effort, it was too much to condense 3 different sources into so little soup. The original phrasing isn't a dubious interpretation of the sources:

• Garland explains that he did not even re-read the first book because he wanted to take the story in his own direction and Jeff VanderMeer was okay with that.
• The other two books were not published until after the film had started
• Garland also did not read the other two books but others did inform him of their contents

Summarizing that information too much has changed the emphasis. If the point of interest is considering the writing and development process, it is strange emphasize how he wasn't influenced by the other two books, when he already downplays the influence of the original book. If the intent it of the paragraph is to defend him from the controversy then it might be better to include something about VanderMeer being okay with it. I would suggest the a rephrase, and perhaps expanding the information from those 3 sources to maybe 2 sentences. -- 109.78.222.41 (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think in some ways the prerelease controversy has unfortunately shaped the Development section of this article into a response to controversy, instead of a potentially more objective overview of the development which could be expanded to separately address the different tasks of writing and casting (and would still indirectly address the controversy, rather than being lead by it). The casting process seems have been relatively diverse without Garland needing to overtly preach about it (until the complaints). The writing and interpretation process could be expanded further, as with many adaptations a film will do things differently from the book, by choice and necessity. -- 109.78.222.41 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I rearranged and expanded a bit so that the Writing (and reading) are grouped together in the Development section and I added a mention that the author gave his approval. The authors comments could be expanded further, either in the context of adapting the book (Development), or the authors positive reaction to the end result (Reception). -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Budget

Why was the net budget listed? Why list anything other than the gross budget? Movies get tax rebates all the time, it is more ambiguous to write prices after rebates instead of the money that had to be spent up front. Movies also presell distribution rights and cover costs in other ways but that doesn't really change the production budget. Let's not go down the rabbithole of Hollywood Accounting.

I would like to remove the net budget from the infobox. I have no problem with the article text (Production, or Box office, or elsewhere) explaining how costs were offset, or rebates were gained but it doesn't make sense to list anything other than the gross figure for the production budget in the infobox. -- 109.78.222.41 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The film article guidelines say nothing about budgets.

At some stage Template:Infobox film was changed to suggest it was okay to list both gross and net budget figures, this was new to me, and it would take a whole lot more digging to check if there was any broad consensus behind the change.

A better source than Box Office Mojo for the claimed net budget would be a good start, but even with better citations and article text to explain it properly I still think it's a terrible idea to list anything other than the gross production budget in the Infobox. (Which doesn't even begin to address the marketing budget, which only rarely gets mentioned in the article text.)

Is there even a local consensus to keep the net budget in this article? -- 109.78.222.41 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone?

Seeing as no one has any comments either way, I'm going to remove what someone claimed what was the net budget but frankly it is far more likely Box Office Mojo just got it wrong. -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Found the edit that claimed, but didn't explain, the different figures Box Office Mojo were a net budget. I've seen them revise their figures before, and fail to update their final box office gross totals, so I don't have much confidence in them as a source and don't think there is anything to support the logical leap that this somehow represents a net budget.

I've searched and found many mentions of the budget as being $55 million and many others listing it as $40 million but nowhere except here claiming it is the net budget.

Variety.com is usually a trustworthy source of budget figures but if the site mentions the budget for Annihilation I haven't found it yet. -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That older edit did not give cites for "net" and "gross." That appears to have been the editor's POV. All we can state is what the reliable sources state, and not extrapolate or make assumptions. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your formatting is definitely an improvement over claiming it is a net budget but I fundamentally question the reliability of Box Office Mojo in this case. I think on the balance of probability the most likely answer is that Box Office Mojo is flat out wrong again, at best making lazy rounded estimates. It's a real shame Variety.com haven't said anything about the budget.

I think it is better not to repeat the word million twice but I'm not going to change it again if you disagree. -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right about the repeated "millions." I forgot. My fault. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadline (in the opening weekend article) lists it as “net $40 million before P&A”. I think that’s a top source, and it’s also fair to use deductive reasoning that if it was listed as $55 million many months ago and then $40 at time of release, then it got a $15M break. Correct me if I’m horribly wrong... TropicAces (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The wikitruth is we have to go with what we've got now and list both.

I remain skeptical. There are now plenty of sources that list both numbers and it is almost impossible to know who read what where, or if anyone was using Box Office Mojo or even this article as their source. I'd have been more confident if they'd been well informed enough to provide a prints and advertising figure. Using deductive reasoning is not unreasonable but in Wikipedia it is worryingly close to synthesis.

In general I think the Infobox should only ever list the gross production budget, and if there are reliable sources discussing specific rebates, then the article text can go into more detail. I thought maybe the film got a tax break for filming in Atlanta or something like that but apparently it was filmed outside London. The lower number could be after be cost offsetting based on the deal with Netflix, but we simply don't have that level of clarity. I've so little confidence in Box Office Mojo it could be £40 million in British pounds, that they misconverted to US dollars, it wouldn't be the first time they've misconverted Euros or Pounds into dollars. Until we have enough information to properly explain in the article text where the deduction comes from, then I'd much prefer that we don't labeling it the net budget.

[Edit: I was going to say:] Unless Garland or Rudin say something about the budget in an interview we've got to continue to list both figures. -- 109.79.95.113 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

[and I was going to say:] For all we know the budget figure comes from someone taking Garland literally when he said the budget was "the budget is what, I don’t know, two and a half times the size of Ex Machina’s".

The Ringer has an interview with Garland but it is a transcript and the full audio is also included, and from the audio at about 27 minutes and 50 seconds, Garland clearly says in his own words "Annihilation is a 40 million dollar film" (transcribed as "Annihilation is a $40 million film" but in the audio he does clearly say dollar).

Now I have to reapply my earlier skepticism and seriously question where the $55 million figure came from. At this point I'm fine with not listing the figure $55 million in the Infobox at all. -- 109.79.95.113 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree, we include the range, as the article currently does.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cass Sheppard's Profession

I am around 99% sure that Cass Sheppard's profession is geomorphologist. It is pretty difficult to confuse that and anthropologist, and she is also seen taking water samples just before the alligator attack. However, it seems that a lot of reviews somehow got the idea that she is anthropologist. Where did this come from? It doesn't seem that she is even a character in the book so that doesn't seem to be the case. I am leaving her profession as is for now, as there seems to have been some competing edits already, and there is a source, however it seems wild to have something in this article which is easily refuted by watching the movie, no matter how many reviews call her an anthropologist. I believe that her profession should be changed to geomorphologist in this article as soon as possible (unless I am completely wrong about this).--NEPats (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoned commentary is appreciated; discussion is at the heart of reconciling different claims. Your recollection is geomorphologist. Mine, like the reviewers', is anthropologist. Either way, we're relying on personal memory, and our memories differ. Probably until the film comes to streaming or video or some other platform where we can pinpoint what she's called the timestamp it to make it absolutely incontrovertible, we need to leave it be since it's RS-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 21:10, April 9, 2018 (UTC)

The film has been on Netflix (and other sites) for a while now. The timestamp is 22:15; here's a clip of the scene in question. --Iiii I I I (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Genuine question. Is there no process for citing the source material? The current use of "scientist" is, I suppose, one solution as at least it's true. What, though, is to stop someone from deleting large parts of the plot summary based on the source material itself as opposed to "reliable sources"? 68.149.17.76 (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Iiii I I I, thanks for posting the clip. I would say there is the additional issue of how fancruft-detailed we want to get. "Scientists" tells the average reader, for whom we're writing, the pertinent occupation clearly.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Littered with Lots of Deliberately False Information from a Single User

Every one of the recent edits from IP 2001:44b8:514d:9600:bd5b:6eee:a19:cfed (all titled "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar") introduces major inaccuracies into this article. Various words are changed to "terrifying" from the actual quotes; the Metacritic weighted average is changed to 19 from 79; and various other inaccuracies.

I started to edit out these inaccuracies and got the following message: "Hello, I'm Longhair. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Annihilation (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Longhair\talk 07:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)"

Please someone revert all that user's contributions, and I hope that editor will be more discerning about what is and isn't constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5487:5300:F87F:8CF2:F4AD:81CA (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted IP 2001's edits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Longhair, your edit here restored an IP editor's vandalism. See source here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"New Weird"

that would be ironic because the wiki article about the author of the novel says it was this series that crossed him over from you weird to mainstream 193.149.173.67 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)