Talk:Argylle

Cena filming quote

I’m not looking to make this a big to-do, but the citation just doesn’t include anything concrete about filming details. Cena saying he’s appearing for WWE on two specific dates isn’t a means of saying filming is happening in between them, that just reads as inference. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: In the interview, John Cena is asked when he will be going to London to film Argylle with Matthew Vaughn. He responds by saying that it's "classified" but also that he will be working on said "classified" material between August 21 and September 10, 2021. His mention of those dates is included with his events with the WWE but that doesn't necessarily matter. He was asked when filming would take place and he specified. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina Cena is implying that he will be filming Argylle between August 21 and September 10, but it's very unlikely that this film is only shooting for 3 weeks. Especially because it is filming "across various locations in Europe." I think this may be only Cena's filming schedule. This source is not definitive enough for the claims it is being used for in this article. Rmaloney3 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer

Okay why is it so important to note she is Vaughn’s wife? It doesn’t look significant in regards to the films production history, and the overall point of NOTINHERITED is a means to discourage making their claim to fame solely in regards to their relationship to another notable person. She is capable of standing on her own merit as a film producer given she’s done so on several movies. We aren’t noting that Zygi Kamasa is the group CEO of Vaughn’s production company so why is it an absolute must we add Schiffer is married to the director? Rusted AutoParts 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessary. However, sources on this film credit her as Claudia Vaughn. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Even still I just really don’t see the need for the notation. The editor can click on her link and see it. Like if it was somehow part of the production history, like them being married was somehow an inspiration or start off point for why the film was being made, “Claudia Schiffer, Vaughn’s wife who is an executive producer on the film, first discovered the story and brought it to Vaughn, who became interested in making it” or something is one thing but she just seems to exec produce his films in general. This kinda goes into my point as well about executive producers just not being that integral to notarize in the production section unless their involvement is part of the production history. Like if it’s a sequel and they were the previous director and stayed on as executive producer, or in the case of this Bee Gees movie where Steven Spielberg, who I guess has some form of rights to make a biopic about them, was initially cut out of the new production but reinstated after complaining, that’s the kind of stuff interesting to note. Rusted AutoParts 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Apple as distributor

@IAmNMFlores: Apple didn't offload the project to Universal. Like with their deals to get Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon into theatres, they entered a partnership with a second studio to work together. I have seen the Universal press release, I know it's language. But this doesn't mean Apple is not part of the distribution equation anymore, so excluding them is disingenuous to do. This is more akin to Paramount and 20th Century Fox partnering to co-distribute Titanic than it is Sony selling The Mitchells vs. the Machines to Netflix. Myself and @Drmies: have both reverted you on this now. Please stop edit warring. Rusted AutoParts 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I initally believed that, as it would make sense that it follows the same pattern as Killers and Napoleon, but sadly there is a lack of evidence in favor of that conclusion, so it seems closer to a Mitchells case. Look, just find one generally reliable source. Drmies told me to find and cite my sources myself and I did. If you can bring a single source post-Universal deal (so anything on or after September of this year) that says that Apple TV+ is distributing too (even if the source simplifies or substitutes the name to just "Apple" or whatever), then there will be no problem if you add it to the article. I got in trouble for not citing, you're getting it easy with me not giving you any big warnings. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean lack of evidence? No source exists that states Universal took sole authorship of the film, because this did not happen, not at all a Mitchells case. A Universal Pictures written press release that accurately calls Universal a distributor doesn't make Apple not involved in the distribution of their own project. Additionally, I don't have to seek out a source calling it a partnership, the initial Variety report about Paramount teaming with them states this clearly in the byline. A source past September doesn't need to exist to corroborate what the situation is: a cooperation. Why would I be given a warning for making the infobox reflect what is accurately stated in the sources linked? So continued exclusion of Apple from the Distributor field is unwarranted and as stated, disingenuous. Rusted AutoParts 20:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's called common sense. In these contradicting statements, it's almost always the current up-to-date one that's correct. Guy found a source that said Martin Scorsese was an executive producer on Joker, later the official website didn't list Scorsese as an executive producer and I tried to remove it but he wouldn't let me with your logic. Guess who was right? Also, really, the byline? The same one where under it says produced by Apple Original Films and distributed by Universal Pictures.

All I asked was a single source that backed up your claims. Fortunately for you, I did the dirty work, and actually dug to find just something that was "good enough". Here, it's People magazine but they're not bad, I guess. IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My "claims" were already in the article. "Apple is partnering with Universal to release the film on the big screen" is literally right under the title of the Variety article. It was there from the go. And citing previous conflicts you've had doesn't negate that. Rusted AutoParts 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, that conclusion was flawed if you didn't ignore the actual article saying produced by Apple Original Films and distributed by Universal Pictures. It needed additional confirmation was what all I was saying. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Budget, cost, or price paid?

The article lists the budget as $200 million. That seems unusually high. (Vaughn had a production budget of $100 million on The King's Man[1] his previous film.) The Variety reference[2] says "The company also bought Matthew Vaughn’s spy thriller “Argylle” for $200 million. which seems to indicate not so much the actual cost of making the film only but rather the price at which Apple bought the distribution rights and ownership. (For example Apple bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, but the film itself had a production budget of $10 million). Can we get any clarification that the figure being listed as the budget in the Infobox is truthfully the production budget, and not a much higher figure Apple paid to buy it off Marv Studios? -- 109.77.193.78 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification was eventually added as a hidden note[3]. I think this shows the purchase price Apple paid was not the same as production budget, and should not presented in the Infobox like as if it was the actual budget as normal readers might find this misleading. The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize key points in the article, the cost should be explained in the article body as clearly visible text not merely as a hidden footnote. -- 109.79.65.192 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This encyclopedia should not knowingly misrepresent the cost paid by Apple as the budget in the Infobox after the director has debunked that claim. I have removed the misleading figure from the Infobox and instead a hidden note I have made sure this information is shown clearly in the Production section. (diff) -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The costs paid by Apple to by the distribution rights are simple not the same things as the production budget. The Variety reference does not say actually budget, it says "produced and financed by Apple for $200 million" and Deadline says "the $200 million, Matthew Vaughn-directed Argylle". Putting the costs in the Infobox with the label "budget" is misleading and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.[4] The director is in a position to to know the budget of his own film. Claims that "Vaughn is likely in damage control" is WP:OR. Caution and wikipedia rules should be exactly the reason not to put WP:UNDUE emphasis on figures in the infobox and label them as if they were the actual production budget] rather than the cost Apple paid to buy it outright. -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Most every single indhdtrubt publication (Deadline, Variety, The Wrap) have explicitly noted the $200 million as the production budget (Hollywood Reporter even went as far as to say some sources have it at $250 million). Vaughn is likely downplaying the cost of the film simply because it is an embarrassing sum to spend on film like this, and even if he’s being correct that doesn’t override every sourced claim. We can add a note to the budget mentioning his rebuttal, but his word isn’t gospel or above Wiki’s budget guidelines. TropicAces (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to include the reliable sources, with context and explanation in the article body. That is not the same thing as highlighting the figures and misrepresenting them in the Infobox. The cost Apple paid is not the same as budget. (Again Apple bought CODA (2021 film) for $25 million, but the film itself had a production budget of $10 million).

I quoted the sources that were provided, they arent' saying what you claim they are saying. The sources do not use the words production budget, they are describing the costs to Apple. It is WP:UNDUE and misleading to put those figures in the Infobox with the label budget when they do not represent the production budget. TropicAces may speculate about Vaughn, but that is his own opinion, it doesn't make it any less misleading to present Apples costs as if it was the actual production budget. (The Hollywood Reporter even explains that a fee was paid to Universal to act as distributor, further inflating the cost to Apple.) This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, does including misleading figures in the Infobox really best serve readers? -- 109.79.74.142 (talk)

I've asked (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Production_budget_versus_cost?) for other opinions. -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Based on past discussions within the film project, particularly at Template talk:Infobox film, the budget field is primarily for the cost to produce the film, which is limited to pre-production and production and not necessarily the final cost the studio pays. Final costs can include post-production expenditures such as marketing, distribution, or even the cost that results from a film changing hands. The additional costs should instead be covered within the article body with appropriate sourcing. At least, that's how I've always understood it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s the confusion/argument here, Gone, it’s deciding whether the publications writing “the $200 million film,” “cost $200 million to produce” and “against a price tag of $200 million to $250 million” means production budget or total cost for Apple. Typically in my experience, when a Variety or Deadline says “the [$40/$130/$200] million movie” they are referring to just production cost, in which case $200-250 million is acceptable to put into the infobox. TropicAces (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's quite relevant. The production cost (including pre-production) is all we want in this field. If the "total cost for Apple" includes costs other than these production costs, then we don't want that amount. If you're saying you're not sure what that total cost includes, then further discussion and better sourcing may be needed before inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Typically in my experience," that sounds like subjective interpretation. " means production budget" to take the cost that Apple paid to buy the distribution rights means the same thing as the production budget you have to intentionally disregard the statements from the director who disputed that claim and said the budget was not anywhere near that much.
  Information is not being excluded, it is being presented in the article body with necessary context, but the disputed figures are just not being highlighted with a misleading "budget" label in the Infobox. -- 109.76.136.144 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  No no, I’m saying neither the IP or I are arguing to include promotion costs in the infobox, should all the cited $200 million figures be that. My argument is when every article is saying the film “cost $200 million to produce”, at what point to we stop taking Vaughn’s word over every publication? Vaughn financed the film for $200 million and sold it to Apple for that same amount, guess I’m just not understanding why this is being handled differently than most films. TropicAces (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Looked at each cited source as well as other uncited sources. Apple's $200-million purchase in 2021 prior to filming has consistently been reported as the film's budget, and it would be on Vaughn's studio, Marv, to stay within that budget to avoid a loss. Given Vaughn's comments at Deadline, along with the Deadline's own estimation, they were likely able to come in well below that $200-million figure (Deadline estimates they saved "tens of millions of dollars" due to "the prep done in advance"). Despite this commentary and analysis, we would need a concrete figure to list any other amount in the infobox, which we simply don't have. I don't think leaving $200 million in the infobox is misleading at this point, especially since we add more detail about that figure in the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  The figures are back in the Infobox misleading labelled as the "budget". Did I miss something? I'm not seeing anything in this discussion to explain why they were added back. I'll try to check the edit history later. -- 109.78.201.112 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Metafictional Promotion/Stunt Book

Currently the article mentions The Hollywood Reporter digging up social media accounts and listings for an Elly Conway novel the movie is "based on."

What's the protocol on documenting situations like this? As the article currently stands it doesn't fully explain that Universal Studios has commissioned a ghost writer to create the in-universe spy novel that fictional writer Elly Conway has published, and are attributing it to said fictional author? The current cover art for the book on Amazon features the phrase "the book that inspired the major motion picture" but all signs point to this being an advertising gimmick. All The Hollywood Reporter can say is the evidence in 2022 shows Elly Conway is a fictional character and the studio is attributing an upcoming novel to said character.

Yet nobody from Universal Studios is going to go on record and say out loud "this book is fictional," so how does one explain that without jumping to conclusions? GavinGaddis (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Cat controversy

Should we add a topic ‘criticism’, containing information about the used cat breed? Suggested content:

Alfie the Cat is played by Chip, a cat of the breed Scottish Fold [5]. This type of breed is recognizable by it’s folded ears, but is banned in many countries, because experts believe that all cats of this breed are in constant pain [6]. Banning countries include the Netherlands in 2014, Austria in 2020, Flanders (Belgium) in 2021, Victoria (Australia), and Norway in 2023.. Experts fear an increase of populairity for this breed, due to this movie [7] [8] [9] Barendnu (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

: Unless there is an official statement or news that criticizes how the film production of Argylle mistreat the cat, we don't put those comment or contents not directly related to Argylle. --TX55^TALK 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

None of these citations refer to or are relevant to Argylle in any way. This would be unencyclopedic to include and not worth discussing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations 5, 6 and 7 do actually refer specifically to Argylle, but please share your opinion about adding these or not. Barendnu (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, given they are mostly non-English it was hard to tell. This all falls under WP:TRIVIA regardless. As subsequent editors suggested, these could be relevant at the Scottish Fold page, though that's something you'd have to bring up there, not here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this has any place in this article. Maybe on the Scottish Fold page? Mike Allen 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the citations and information specifically and exclusively about the Scottish Fold breed ought to be added to and explored on the Scottish Fold page, if not already, while the specific citations about the Scottish Fold breed inasmuch as it is related to the film itself, the aforementioned citations 5, 6, and 7, should probably be included within this article. RedMethyst (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Those three citations in particular could be of use, although they would have to be incorporated in a more constructive manner from higher quality sources than those that are merely speculating about the use of the cat in the film, which presently don't have any strong reliable backing to warrant inclusion in this article at this time. I would hardly even say this is a controversy, which tend to get too much focus on articles of recent releases which leads to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If this ends up becoming a notable subject of discussion in regards to the film over time, then it could be added with more reputable sourcing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Kingsman?

Real talk, is this Kingsman? The mid-credits scene announces a prequel film called Argylle: The First Chapter coming to cinemas soon, with the very actor the director has been shooting a film with for the last few months, and the scene shows Argylle being recruited by Kingsman. So if the film is about a Kingsman agent, should this go on the Kingsman page as the next film in that franchise, even the first Argylle (this film) was not about the same agents as the first two films or the prequel? 77.92.145.214 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Argylle is only a crossover with the Kingsman franchise, though it is not a Kingsman film in of itself so that should not be stated here nor should it be listed as such on any Kingsman page on this site. While Vaughn has ideas for these to exist in a shared universe, no official plans to do so have been formally confirmed by either Vaughn or the studios, hence why it is listed as "potential". To state the credits scene automatically implies or makes Argylle part of Kingsman would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there is a crossover though, should this page not be given the Category:Kingsman (franchise) category (though not the subcategory Category:Kingsman (franchise) films, since it is just a crossover)? 77.92.145.214 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not part of the franchise so it should not be categorized as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It may not get made (going by critical and commercial response). Henry Cavill Says Argylle Sequels Depend on "Whether the Audience Likes What We've Done" Mike Allen 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That is an excuse used by a lot of Hollywood creatives. It is essentially meaningless jargon to save face. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I saw, there was just an easter egg in the post-credits scene. No direct connection, just a name-drop. Beaumain (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, editors/fans tend to jump the gun on these sort of things here. Mike Allen 16:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Masterkey or Masterfile

I just finished watching this. I could be wrong but I think they called it a masterfile, not a masterkey. Did I just understand them incorrectly? Rockfang (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They did use "Masterkey" in the film. "Masterfile" would just be a misunderstanding. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is strange. I could've sworn I heard (and read) "masterfile". Mandela effect? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So I'm not going nuts. Woohoo. Rockfang (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The plot thickens... BBC, USA Today, and /Film use "master file"; while TheWrap, Collider, and Men's Health use "master key". Something fishy is going on, or perhaps there were two different versions of the film? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is peculiar. The version in American cinemas uses "masterkey" (including the theatre I work at). It could be similar to the Beyond the Spider-Verse situation. I want to think the American usage is "masterkey" and the English et all versions use "masterfile". I'd need to double check that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in California. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, there goes that hypothesis. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

There are two versions, like how Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle had Van Pelt’s full name be “John Hardin Van Pelt” in some versions but “Russel Van Pelt” in other versions. No reason we can fathom there being a difference version-to-version (which is not always country-specific), but it is what it is. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We still need sources to adequately corroborate this. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't need a source to decide what to use in the plot summary, but if both versions are "correct", whatever's currently in the article can remain as it is. Any further attempts to change it would just be pedantic and unnecessary drama, as it doesn't matter. I don't mind whether we use "masterfile" or "masterkey" — I only came here to check that we weren't jumping the gun and calling this a Kingsman film; fortunately, other editors were already on the case . InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If Argylle: The First Book does end up following the younger Argylle working for Kingsman as the mid-credits scene indicates though, what do we do? 77.92.145.214 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Haha, I highly doubt that film will be made (was clearly a joke at the end of the film), especially with [10]. But even if it involved Kingsman, we would just call it a crossover rather than part of the series. Aliens is not part of the Predator series; Transformers is not part of the G.I. Joe series; and The Amazing Spider-Man is not part of the MCU. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Working title

I found a source claiming the working title for Argylle was "Tartan".[11] Are there any other (better) sources to corroborate this? -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Billing block

There's not only an actor that wasn't listed on the billing block on the poster that was listed in the billing block in the actual movie itself. Also, Henry Cavill, who was listed first in the poster billing block, is listed 5th in the actual movie billing. I believe that we need to change the billing block to better represent the movie itself. Loservilleas (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Henry Cavill is listed first on the poster, above the title (he is also listed first in the small print of the poster billing block). Template:Infobox film says "In general, use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors.[a] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus." That guideline was an attempt to avoid people edit warring about names in the Infobox. User:Loservilleas are you asking for a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to ignore the poster and go by the end credits instead? Based on knowledge of the plot of the film it seems reasonable to use the end credits billing instead (because the poster is arguably misleading) but you'll need a firm consensus otherwise people are going to edit war about it. Weak support to use the end credits order. -- 109.79.74.142 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm trying to do. I was trying to get a firm consensus because we know that Henry Cavill was not that involved within the actual plot. Loservilleas (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If all you want to do is move Cavill to fifth in the infobox I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd be against adding any further actors though. Barry Wom (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I'm going to do that.Loservilleas (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Acronym?

The article currently states, "Elly is in fact agent Rachel Kylle (an acronym for Argylle)". How is that supposed to work as an acronym? It's not even an anagram. Maybe whoever wrote that meant 'pseudonym', but otherwise the words in parentheses should be removed. Regards, PKT(alk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A friendly IP editor has corrected this to a more plausible explanation...... PKT(alk) 15:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)