Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Disney receives £30millions tax break for this movie/budget

Hi, I think this article will complete the info about the budget of Ant-Man and the Wasp:Quantumania, weirdly I have don't seen this info among the trades (sorry for my english):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11855025/Disney-receives-30m-tax-break-making-flop-superhero-movie-Ant-Man-Wasp-Quantumania.html

The budget was originally £156.5million (so around 194 millions dollars) and with the £30.4million tax break, the budget is £126.1million so around 156 millions dollars (closer to 157 millions); this article is interesting because Disney have confirmed these numbers:

"Disney confirmed the figures quoted but offered no further statement."

I will add this number to the budget of 200 millions to have differents sources, I'm not sure if 200 millions have confirmed or not by Disney or that simply a leak. Bervassel (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember that DailyMail is an unreliable source. You'll need to find another source for this, as this one cannot be used. —El Millo (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

l can understand the Dailymail source in general is unreliable, but I doubt they would say that Marvel have confirmed these numbers if it was not the case, the movie have been shot in England (Pinewood studios), that explain the validity of this info.

Also for the Trades and the 200 millions budget is not a good source too, see for example the huge gap for Avatar 2 from 250 millions to 450 millions dollars (all from Variety, Deadline etc...), except if it's a direct quote from Disney,these media are in general into educational guess and leak.

But okay, I understand that Dailymail could be a problem I don't edit the page, I will try to find another source, thanks for your time. Bervassel (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is this Forbes piece on the budget that can be used. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Trailblazer101, the Forbes article have cited the Dailymail, so that still the main source, I have read this info in a forum way before the Dailymail for Quantumania to be honest (about tax break), I find the article not really objective, in fact we don't know where they have found these "200 millions" or if the post production budget was important (just a suppostion from them), in fact the others numbers in this article are just from Dailymail, but weirdly don't give any importance for this important tax break.

See the difference from the same Forbes, for the same tax break who have been already used (that maybe not the good term) for Dr Strange 2: Multiverse of Madness:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/01/28/how-marvel-saved-40-million-on-its-biggest-movie-of-2022/?sh=7ade4e15639c Bervassel (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we add both Forbes and Dailymail for sources ? Bervassel (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Forbes source addresses the Daily Mail info and adds/explains it. Only Forbes is needed here. Daily Mail should not be used as it has been deemed unreliable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you again for the link and your replies. Bervassel (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I have tried several edit, and I fail to resolve the problem " Cite error: The named reference https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/04/02/disney-reveals-200-million-spending-on-ant-man-and-the-wasp-quantumania/?sh=1ecedfa45c46 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

If somebody can fix the problem or explain how to resolve that, that would be very nice, sorry again. Bervassel (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bervassel  Done here Jolly1253 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jollu1253, sorry for the problem.

I'm not sure why, but the budget of 156 millions I have posted have been erased, that from the article:

"its latest financial statements show that it spent a total of $193.2 million (£156.5 million) between November 2019, when the company was founded, and December 31 2021. As this author recently revealed in the Daily Mail newspaper, Quantumania received a $37 million (£30 million) reimbursement"

193 million-37=156 million, I will add again this number, I don't think it's a problem if we have two different sources for the budget. Bervassel (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, you can't use Daily Mail to source anything in the article, as it's considered an unreliable source. —El Millo (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry El Millo, but the quotes and the numbers are from Forbes not from dailymail (they talk in dollars), this article have just taken their source from Dailymail but with more details; Trailblaizer101 have said we can take in this context this Forbes article. Bervassel (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The source:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/04/02/disney-reveals-200-million-spending-on-ant-man-and-the-wasp-quantumania/?sh=1ecedfa45c46

The quotes from this article, so Forbes and by Caroline Reid:

"its latest financial statements show that it spent a total of $193.2 million (£156.5 million) between November 2019, when the company was founded, and December 31 2021. As this author recently revealed in the Daily Mail newspaper, Quantumania received a $37 million (£30 million) reimbursement"

They have without doubt asked the permission but also their sources for these numbers, so they are valid for Forbes. Bervassel (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

So can I add 156 million for the budget ? Bervassel (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The reimbursement does not mean that the budget changed. Forbes said Disney has revealed that it spent $193.2 million (£156.5 million) on pre-production and filming Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania and Theaters retain around 50% of its takings with the remainder going to Disney giving it around $235.5 million. This would be just enough to make a profit if its costs were capped at pre-production and filming but that is far from the case. These do not take into account the remaining budget for post-production, before noting It puts the budget at much more than the estimated $200 million and there is no doubt about the data that backs up this assessment. and points to this Variety piece. Forbes said the Marvel subsidiary was eligible for an up to 25% reimbursement. The total budget, with post production include, would be more than $200 million. $193.2 million is without post, and not in full. The Daily Mail report is minute and inconsequential in this regard. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I disagree.

First that just a supposition from Forbes/Variety articles, in fact they don't give any numbers, how cost the post-production ? they give nothing; maybe Disney have others tax break, we know for sure that this movie have commercial deals, brand parternship with Heineken and Volswagen for example, so except Disney, nobody know the real numbers.

You have said "The reimbursement does not mean that the budget changed", sorry I don't agree, yes that mean the budget have changed alot, Pinewood studios are well known for that, see the article of Dr Strange 2 or recently Shazam 2:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/01/28/how-marvel-saved-40-million-on-its-biggest-movie-of-2022/?sh=7ade4e15639c

The theater take don't change the budget, that change the profit (not sure it's about 50 or 65%, that just a general calculation who should be taken case by case for the movies, deadline etc...made lot of mistakes about that).

So in this context I think we should just take direct and raw numbers, because we don't know if the post-production were really so big or not, becausel if pre-production numbers from Dailymail is a problem, well the 200 millions shouldn't be taken too.

Also Variety imho seem to speculate alot, for example 100 millions dollars marketing spend "at least", well that just a educational gess from them, so that also not a real number or source.

For the moment we have just two clear number that we can use for the article, 200 million, and 156 million; I think we should have 156 million too for an alternate take of the budget, in fact Forbes have given these two differents numbers (193 million before the tax break).

So if you want to add 156 million that would be cool, if not I will add myself if everybody are okay. Bervassel (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest leaving the budget at $200 million per Trailblzer above. Bervassell, you can't take figures from a website and subtract them yourself to come up with a final number. WP:OR/WP:CALC Mike Allen 20:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Mike Allen I would agree with you with complicated and various numbers, but sorry , they are just two direct numbers in the same phrase, 193 and 37 million; the article of Forbes have taken the same number that Dailymail, where the article have made the calculation, but not Forbes, that don't change the fact that the same numbers.

if an article would have said the budget have been 200 millions and add 100 million in post-production, I don't think we need them to write explicitly to understand that the budget is 300 million.

I have said I would add 156 million if everybody are okay, I'm not here to cause problem, the important part is the link for the article, but I think with the number that would be more clear.

Sorry if I'm little stubborn, but I don't think these numbers are false or out of context. Bervassel (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

For starters, the 156 million is incorrect. The source states the pre-production and filming spending was US dollars $193.2 million, which is converted to the UK's pound £156.5 million. As I already explained, that's not a full budget as it does not factor in the post-production amount, which Forbes noted would be upward of the expected US$200 million budget that has already been reported on. The tax breaks do not mean that the budget was changed, as the budget is what the company (in this case, Marvel Studios and their Pym Productions III) paid to make the movie. Any reimbursement (such as the US$37 million, which is from Daily Mail so we can't use that per WP:FRUIT) is not and should not be subtracted from the overall budget in any capacity. US$156 million is not a lower estimated budget, but rather a different form of currency, and should not be included as this is an American film so the American currency is used. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding onto that, the Multiverse of Madness report is discussing how that film's net cost is $172 million thanks to how a $41.7 million payment came from the UK government which came as a result of a tax relief program due to the delays in production caused by COVID. This was in regards to the whole budget of $200 million, whereas the Quantumania reimbursement was not money being used directly to aid the film during production whereas for Quantumania, the reimbursement was not even disclosed as part of the full budget, but for pre-production and filming only, unlike for MoM. Daily Mail cannot and should not be used regardless of what they say. Forbes and Variety are the reliable sources so we go off of what they reported. The £156.5 million is the same, as in equal to, the $193.2 million for pre- and filming. Marvel spent all of that, and the reimbursement came after, but we don't know the exact budget with post included (which would have to be upward of the estimated $200 million given the extent of VFX work for Marvel movies and this one especially). It appears to be a coincidence that the US$193.2 million minus US$37 million equals the £156.5 million, though those are not the same currencies, and as such, the math is incorrect despite appearing otherwise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry no Dr Strange most important part is because of the tax break nothing to do with the delay from Covid, see yourself:

Movie budgets are usually kept a closely-guarded secret as studios tend to absorb the cost of individual pictures in their overall expenses. However, the costs of movies made in the UK are consolidated in single companies which file annual financial statements.

This helps them benefit from the UK government’s Film Tax Relief scheme which allows production companies to claim back up to 25% of the costs they incur in the UK.

inancial statements for Supreme Works Productions II show that over the nine months to May 8 2021 the company received a $35.9 million (£29 million) tax credit which followed a $5.8 million (£4.7 million) payment the previous year when pre-production began.

Across both periods, a total of $213.7 million (£172.5 million) was spent on making the movie before it banked the tax credit. It received a slightly higher tax credit than the $36.5 million (£29.6 million) paid for the first Doctor Strange movie even though that one had a higher budget at $228.1 million (£184.1 million).

Marvel have claimed just 1,5 millions dollars because covid delay:

In January 2021 Olsen told Jimmy Kimmel Live that production had stopped due to a rise in Covid-19 cases in the UK. "Since the hospitals are overwhelmed here we can't go back to work until that calms down," she said. It was such a problem that Marvel claimed $1.5 million (£1.2 million) of furlough grants from the UK government in connection with the movie. Even that didn't go far enough."

Pinewood Studio is used by various studios since the beginning of the production because of these tax; there are various articles who talk about that (and sometimes complain):

https://deadline.com/2023/02/film-studios-pinewood-fight-property-tax-hikes-1235257792/ Bervassel (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok Trailbalzer, so why do you give the link from Forbes article to use, in the place of Dailymail, if we can't use the numbers from Forbes or substact the tax numbers ? I mean it was in my title lol, but okay no problem. 88.160.44.229 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok Trailbalzer, so why do you give the link from Forbes article to use, in the place of Dailymail, if we can't use the numbers from Forbes or substact the tax numbers ? I mean it was in my title lol, but okay no problem.

edit: the moderator can erased my previous message ? I have forgotten to use my account, thanks for advance. Bervassel (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We can use Forbes as a source, not Daily Mail. We can't manual subtract numbers ourselves as the $37 million (£30 million) is from Daily Mail, and as such, is unreliable. Forbes discussing it in their article does not mean it is officially confirmed. We can't use info taken from an unreliable site on Wikipedia even if a reliable site directly cites the unreliable one, per WP:FRUIT. Even then, subtracting $37 million from $193 million amounts to nothing as $193 million is not the full budget. The budget is expected to be upward of $200 million with post-production VFX included, whereas, as I've already explained, $193 million was what Marvel spent only on pre-production and filming. That is the main reason here. None of these other numbers will be added to the article as they are not the full budget numbers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok but 200 millions is not the full budget too according Forbes, so why to use it ? I quote the article: "sent the costs soaring far beyond the amount that had already been spent.", but like I have said that seem more of speculation and nothing else (without clear numbers). Bervassel (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

$200 million is the estimated budget per Variety, Forbes, and this IndieWire source which is already used in the article, as the upmost that their sources have all determined. These are websites dedicated to the coverage of these movies and they are not speculating, but providing reputable estimates. Forbes cited Disney's financial statements confirming the bare minimum of at least $200 million for the budget, confirming what the Variety and IndieWire sources stated. These MCU movies typically have budget numbers being more specific than that, though due to the extent of how big these are, only a rough estimate is provided typically. Sources down the road could come out with an even more specific budget upward of $200 million, which is expected, although at least $200 million is the common bare minimum budget reported on by the sources, so that is what ought to be used and retained unless new reports reveal otherwise. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The Forbes article is not reliable, unless the author can be proven as a subject-matter expert. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: this is due to the author not being part of the Forbes staff but a "Forbes Contributor", per WP:FORBESCON. —El Millo (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Very true. Even without the Forbes piece, we have the other two (Variety and IndieWire) reporting $200 million. I think we should just stick to those two. The Forbes contributor's bio states they largely cover the cost of making movies with 15 years of service across other publishers. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for to explain your point of view Trailblazer, thank your patience to reply to my comment and for the link to the Forbes article.

Thank again to Jolly1253 to have corrected my mistake for my contribution. Bervassel (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I have swapped the Forbes piece for the (now unhidden) Variety article to further verify the budget as they are the ones most easily verifiable. If it is deemed the contributor is a subject-matter expert, then we could incorporate some of those details, though I'm not sure how much is necessary. To note, the same contributor has a piece on Multiverse of Madness that is in use at that article, and I'm not sure if that was verified or not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com where it was revealed that this journalist is an established journalist and that these financial details such as tax credit reliefs are publicly available and more accurate than what we have been including in the articles, such as for IW and Endgame, given trades we typically use are not as accurate. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Why Cassie Lang was recast

Reed finally explained why. Please see how to add it. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Reed only talks about the recast in comparison to Fortson, who played her as a kid in the first two Ant-Man films. The source itself says that he didn't even mention Fuhrmann, which would be the more relevant aspect of this. The reasons behind casting an older actress are obvious as Fortson is only 15 years old now. I don't know if what Reed says here has encyclopedic value. —El Millo (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction to Cast list format

Greetings, fellow obsessives! Some of you won't like this—but in the Cast section, I've suggested removing the colons and linebreaks between character/actor names and character descriptions.
   I'm sure whoever started that odd practice meant well—but as a senior technical writer with over 30 years' experience [blush], I'm here to tell you, that's just not how colons are used. They may seem introductory that way, but they simply create an illogical stop, leaving two sentence fragments (rather the inverse of a run-on). It's misused punctuation (or "MP", as we call it in the trade—LOL). It's a practice I've never seen in any serious publication; and the only time I've seen it in a style guide was an injunction not to do it.
   If character descriptions seem long enough to need breaks, I'd first consider it a sign they're overwritten, possibly duplicating too much material from their own articles (which is what links are for). If you pare one down and it still needs a break, great—indent it a few ems (without extra leading), creating a paragraph within the bulleted item. That's completely legit.
   And yes, readers get it. Give them some credit—you needn't coddle them by reinventing the wheel.
   Well, sorry to be so pedantic. WP's fantastic, and I want to use my experience to benefit it all I can. That, not ego, is my sole motivation, so I hope you'll take this idea to heart. Thanks for all your excellent, highly appreciated work. Cheers – AndyFielding (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the film a box office "bomb" or "disappointment"?

Looking at the edit history for the past few days, there have been some editors that are in dispute as to whether Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is a box office "bomb" or "disappointment". I am going to open a discussion to settle this so that further edit warring can (hopefully) be avoided. There were past discussions about the film being a box office bomb, but the outcome was that there were no reliable sources reporting on it. (Although I think that it's more or less settled on the film being a "disappointment", I don't think it would hurt to open a discussion about it.) Jolly1253 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "box office bomb" implies that a film lost a significant amount of cash. This film is unlikely to lose any cash once ancillary markets are taken into consideration. It's fair enough to describe it as a "disappointment" as it didn't reach the break-even point on its theatrical release. Barry Wom (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Sounds like a "disappointment" to me. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Ancillary market revenue that is generated outside of the box office are not taken into account when determining if a film bombed. If there are sources reporting that it bombed, then we shouldn't change the verbiage to "disappointment", or vice versa. I'm for whatever reliable sources are reporting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As GoneIn60 said, WP:STICKTOSOURCE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Budget

For people that don't understand how to obtain a film's budget when it's produced in the UK. The process is simple. Go to the the UK site here. Find the statement that says "Full accounts made up to" whatever year. It'll have the current and past year's results, so you might need to open multiple documents. In Ant-Man 3's case, 2020's amount was negligible, but if you want an exact number you'll need to obtain 2020 from the 2021 document. Once you have your documents, you need to sum up Cost of Sales for each year and subtract Tax on Loss for each year from that sum. That gives you the film's UK budget, and in Ant-Man 3's case, because it was almost entirely a UK production, more or less the film's true budget. For the $275M number, I relied just on Ant-Man 3's "Full accounts made up to 31 December 2022" document, used the four numbers listed there, and converted to USD. poketape (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for uncovering this and detailing it for us. It helps out a lot and puts it more into perspective. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Summing 4 numbers and converting to USD sounds too much like original research to me? Indagate (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this covered by WP:CALC or is this too much? —El Millo (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As detailed by @Betty Logan (pinging to bring in some insight to better articulate this than I can) here, there is British Tax reimbursement for UK film productions, which we know through this prior discussion applied to this film. Not all film budgets are necessarily accurate at the start or within the first year or two of release, so I would say this higher figure should come as no surprise given most of the mainstream sites we use hand a tendency to round them, especially since the financial figures get sorted out by the companies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. The calculation as outlined by poketape is 100% accurate. As for whether this falls within the scope of WP:CALC is more complicated. The actual arithmetic is straightforward: just basic addition and subtraction. The problem though is that it is arguably WP:OR to identify "cost of sales" as the gross budget, and "Tax on loss" as the tax credit. Even though poketape has interpreted the correct quantities in the correct way, it is not apparent to somebody accessing the accounts, which is why Wikipedia generally requires secondary sources to interpret primary sources. There is also the issue of converting £GP into $US too, since conversion rates are dynamic. In other words, £100 million may convert to $120 million today, and $130 million tomorrow. It's a very frustrating issue to have incorrect estimates in the article when we have the audited, factual actuals available to us, but are prevented from including it because of how Wikipedia functions. Maybe this would be an appropriate time to invoke WP:IAR because Wikipedia policies are not only preventing us from adding factual information, they are also promoting the retention of factually inaccurate information. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I too have concerns about the UK£ to US$ conversion. You may have noticed that inflation has been significant recently. I think the real answer is to make sure the article body explains this all as clearly as possible (stop burying important context in hidden footnotes). Please note WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article."

Also the earlier figurers are not irrelevant, that the figures changed over time matters. (Template:Infobox film expressly warns against cherry picking budget figures.) The underreporting matters. They may also indicate the film may have been greenlit at one budget but overspent. We don't know why figures changes, so earlier estimates should not be casually erased or excluded. Please make sure that this encyclopedia article it not incomplete and that the earlier estimates are not omitted. -- 109.76.192.131 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

poketape wrote "more or less the film's true budget" I find it hard to believe that the film had no US costs outside the UK and remain skeptical. Hollywood accounting. -- 109.76.192.131 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A more accurate budget was revealed by Forbes and is already included in the article, with a brief explanation given in the ref as a quote. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have also now included an explanation of the budget and costs in the Post-production section, that way it is all in a centralized location. It is also briefly addressed in the Box office section. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)