Talk:Pet (film)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Carles Torrens in topic {{request edit}}

Inclusion criteria

edit

Having completed filming, being slated for release quite soon, and with its production having enough coverage, this film topic meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and may remain and grow further as more becomes known. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sources:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

{{request edit}}

edit

Dear Editor:

I am writing to seek a correction on a claim in the entry for the 2016 movie Pet (film).

Issue #1: The Wikipedia page currently states:  Pet “is the lowest-growing theatrical release of 2016 with a total gross of $70 and is the second lowest grossing film ever released.”  The source linked to is Box Office Mojo, which is the leading online box office reporting service. However, this link does not support the claims made in the entry.  In fact, a search of 2016 films on Box Office Mojo, shows that Pet had a total gross of $8,004 AND was ranked 663 out of 736 in terms of gross box office earnings of films released in that year alone. 

<source> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pet2016.htm

Issue #2: The entry goes on to state: “However, the $70 figure has been disputed by the director, Carless Torrens.” As noted above, both the $70 figure and the “second lowest grossing film ever released” claim are both clearly and demonstrably inaccurate. To simply repeat the errors and note the director’s objections is misleading. Additionally, this sentence misspells the director’s first name. We appreciate your prompt attention to this issue. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have additional questions or we can be of any further assistance in clarifying this matter.

Sincerely, Carles Torrens

I've removed the claims; the $63 gross was from the single theater opening, later expanded to 9 theaters and $8,004. I hope this resolves your issue. Further edits should also be suggested on the talk page, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 05:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alex, thank you so much for taking care of this so quickly, as well as being so clear on your explanation. However, there's still some information that's incorrect.

The film was indeed realeased on December 2nd, 2016, but it came out in 9 theaters from the get-go, as opposed to just one.

The confusion came from an earlier, erroneous report on Boxofficemojo, claiming the film was released on September 30th, 2016, grossing only $63. That information is incorrect; both the Septmber 30th release date, and the $63 number.

As you can see in the following references, the film was released on December 2nd, 2016 <ref>https://www.movieinsider.com/movies/december/2016/2 <ref> <ref>http://deadline.com/2016/10/pet-thriller-movie-release-date-orion-samuel-goldwyn-1201830056/ <ref>, not on September 30th, and if you look at the chart on boxofficemojo <ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=pet2016.htm <ref>, we grossed $1,078 on December 1st (a pre-release), and a total of $6,730 the weekend of December 2nd- not $63.

We have notified boxofficemojo, and are currently working with them to take down the September 30th release claim, as well as the $63 claim.

Hence, is it possible for you guys to remove the $63 opening gross claim, and fix the fact that on December 2nd, we came out in nine theaters, as opposed to one? If you feel you don't have enough evidence to do the edit, I understand, and I'll work to get you more information.

Be that as it may, thank you very much again.

Carles Torrens (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Carles TorrensCarles Torrens (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Carles Torrens: Makes sense. The claim is removed altogether, thanks. Alex ShihTalk 08:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Alex Shih: Thank you so much, I really appreciate this. Carles Torrens (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Carles TorrensCarles Torrens (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply