Talk:Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

Poster with billing

https://imgur.com/a/sC26B7O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.68.4.225 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

All good nothing to see here. 162.231.30.194 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is the domestic poster with the FULL billing block including "In Theaters" instead of "In Cinemas" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12037194/mediaviewer/rm3070323457/?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_3 ScottSullivan01 (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Budget to Box Office

According to the source provided Furiosa only made $58,000,000. Not $65,000,000+ as stated by the wiki article.

Also, there are discrepancies in the budget. According to The New York Times Furiosa cost between $168,000,000-$233,000,000. The article should be updated to reflect those discrepancies.

https://screenrant.com/furiosa-budget-box-office-comparison/ WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The article also clearly claims the movie made $58,300,000. Why is there a difference? Typically Box Office Mojo is used, not The Numbers. WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Too much focus on US reviews.

I agree that US is the most significant market for feature films. But please do keep in mind that there are other significant markets too. They may not have the muscle power of USA in the industry gained through USD revenue numbers and Award Ceremonies. But they do support with significant box-office admission numbers. https://flixpatrol.com/market/box-office-revenues/ Would be great if film reviews from other markets are also shown in Wikipedia. Saleesh (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But the muscle power of the U.S. itself is diminished compared to say, 2014. Ten years ago movies made in the US make 90% of worldwide revenues but now it's 80%. The difference is there.213.230.92.151 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Rules for Updating Box Office Figures

There are currently two cited sources of box office data: Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. It seems the current norm is to periodically choose the source that posts the higher box office figure and use it for the article. Is this the standard way to handle box office figures for all movie articles? Also, on a side note, why do the box office references each contain an archival link? 66.215.184.32 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Village Roadshow Pictures

I think the question of whether Village Roadshow Pictures produced this movie is turning into an edit war. Starting this topic in the hope it will lead to consensus.

Points against including VRP: (1) Obviously VRP was not listed in the opening credits. (2) As the Wikipedia page indicates, VRP did not co-fund the movie. (3) The VRP website includes Fury Road on its movie list but not Furiosa. (https://vreg.com/film/)

Points for including VRP: (1) Obviously VRP was part of the trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJMuhwVlca4) (2) Cannes (where the movie premiered) lists VRP on its website. (https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/press/press-releases/furiosa-a-mad-max-saga-world-premiere-at-the-77th-festival-de-cannes/)

Thanks for considering my comments. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Paging in @69.84.241.50 and @Fanaticaddict. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If you may have noticed, the VRP logo was only a part of the first trailer, NOT the most recent ones. It is nowhere to be found. Plus, the fact that it does not appear in the film itself should be enough reasoning to not include it in this article. Also, on the 25th of May, after the film's release, Deadline Hollywood reported that Village Roadshow Pictures, who had co-financed Fury Road, did not co-finance Furiosa—per https://deadline.com/2024/05/box-office-furiosa-garfield-memorial-day-1235938017 Fanaticaddict (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any contrary arguments, I think today's revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Furiosa:_A_Mad_Max_Saga&oldid=1226991500) by 2601:58c:c280:5600:9c02:d176:5807:39d5 is more or less appropriate. I believe it properly lays out the competing facts while at the same time deferring to the producers as listed in the opening credits. In particular, at this time, I do not think anyone has provided a sufficient basis to rebut the opening credits (which don't credit VRP) by listing VRP as a co-producer in the Furiosa infobox. In addition, I think today's editor has provided a reasonable explanation for why Warner Bros. would not have included VRP in the production. If additional evidence emerges showing that VRP actually co-produced Furiosa, that evidence (properly cited, of course) can be added at that time. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Australian government grants

I learned today that various levels of Australian government covered 53% of the film’s production budget. This is almost certainly grant money and not loans that have to repaid, so this changes the overall math significantly. The budget that the film has to recoup is now $79m US instead of $168m US (plus the marketing costs). I think that the movie has a chance to eventually break even with these adjusted numbers despite being pulled out of the theaters, it won’t break even at the box office of course but it might eventually with all the other revenue streams counted in (blu-rays, digital sales, streaming, etc.). Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article somewhere, since it makes the overall financial situation far less grim. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The current version of the Wikipedia article mentions the government subsidies in the context to which you were referring (although I do notice that people are changing the lede fairly frequently). However, I'm not sure we are in a position to get more specific, because Warner Bros. had the opportunity to clarify the situation in advance of this morning's Variety article and apparently chose to not provide specific numbers to rebut the article's claims from unnamed industry analysts. That's WB's right - it's what to expect from Hollywood accounting - but it does mean that any estimate of whether Furiosa will be profitable or not is speculation that doesn't really belong in a Wikipedia article except in fairly general terms. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I looked for the Variety article you mentioned earlier. The claim that the film needs to make $350 million to $375 million to break even is inaccurate if the Australian state grants covered more than half of the production budget. This means that more than half of the production costs do not need to be recouped. I'm not sure why the author of the Variety article didn't take into account the granted amount. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Some back of the envelope math suggests that the Variety article did in fact take into account some amount of government funding, but did not credit the $80M reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (I'm skeptical of the ABC's figure, but the ABC is an outlet of record and it hasn't issued a correction.)

The published budget was $168M and the breakeven formula Variety cited was 2.5x the budget. $168M x 2.5 is actually $420M; Variety's $350-375M estimate corresponds to a budget of $140-150M, implying that the industry sources think Australia contributed around $18-28M, as opposed to $85M.

Obviously, I'm in no position to confirm either estimate. A Redditor said the other day that a contact at Miller's production company told them they "aren't sure of the exact [budget] but believe it's lower than 168M but closer to it than to 100M." That leak tends to support the Variety estimate. But I don't think unconfirmed Reddit leaks are reliable enough for Wikipedia. (https://www.reddit.com/r/MadMax/comments/1ddixub/spoilers_another_possible_leak_on_the_wasteland/) 209.122.123.7 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. The info that 53% of the film's budget indeed comes from ABC (the production cost $333.2 million AUD, with the New South Wales Government's Made in NSW fund giving $175 million AUD, in addition to offsets from the Australian federal government, which are reportedly a 40% tax rebate). All of this really comes down to the accuracy of ABC's figures. If this is indeed the case, Furiosa will make movie history as a major production that imploded at the box office but, strangely down the line, ended up in the black (on that reduced budget figure of 47% that actually needs to be recouped). Remains to be seen, fascinating story. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

p.s. I also found this one (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-19/mad-max-new-movie-starring-chris-hemsworth-to-be-filmed-in-nsw/100077950): "NSW Treasurer Dom Perrottet said Furiosa was being partly paid for by the "Made in NSW" fund, which was worth $175 million per film over five years." 137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI that ABC removed the AU$175M estimate for the NSW subsidy - but without issuing a correction.

There are no hard numbers for how much money Furiosa actually received from Australia. Professor Lotz ballparked the NSW subsidy at AU$50M but didn't provide a source or explain her reasoning. In addition, I would guess that Furiosa did not get to apply the 40% federal government producer offset to the entire AU$333M budget; based on the credits and DNEG's historical business model, I'd guess that most of the VFX work took place in India (although the lead VFX guy is Australian). 209.122.123.7 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. I did notice that ABC quietly changed the article and simply took the figure out. I read the Lotz's article as well, and her figures come to $183m AUD from the state ($50m + $133m AUD from two sources). Here is another source: https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/australian-taxpayers-footed-half-the-bill-for-hollywood-dud-furiosa-a-mad-max-saga/news-story/80dc3e820f36b5bf75c3b2cabb381420 The plot thickens! 137.82.108.34 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this an Australian film, or an Aussie–U.S. co-production?

The lead sentence suggests the former, but both countries are listed in the infobox. Which is it?—indopug (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a small-scale edit war on this point a few weeks ago, which I thought was mostly dead. MOS:FILMCOUNTRY doesn't provide guidance on the nationality of a film, other than to say that "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section."

Here, there is some dispute among the reliable sources. Cannes, where the film premiered, and (unsurprisingly) Australia's version of the MPAA call Furiosa a solely Australian film. (https://www.festival-cannes.com/en/f/furiosa-a-mad-max-saga/; https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/furiosa-mad-max-saga). IMDB and Letterboxd (which uses data from TMDB) call it an Australian-USA co-production. (https://letterboxd.com/film/furiosa-a-mad-max-saga/details/; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12037194/)

Ergo, I think it might be better to omit the nationality in the opening sentence and then later note something like "Filmed in Australia and financed by American production companies, Furiosa was the most expensive film in Australian history..."

Obviously, this was a co-production between American and Australian production companies, but given the Mad Max franchise's particular significance to Australian culture (and the fact that the film was shot in Australia by mostly-Australian personnel with a mostly-Australian cast and was funded with generous Australian subsidies), I can understand why some editors were very invested calling it a solely Australian production. 209.122.123.7 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)