Talk:Rogue One

Fifteen years

I discussed this before (Talk:Rogue_One/Archive_2#Timeline) but I think it might need to be raised again

In the film Jyn clearly states that she has not seen her father in fifteen years. For a considerable amount the history of this article it said Bohdi defected fifteen years later but some editors are changing that to thirteen years for no apparent reason, which seems to contradict what Jyn says. (In the previous discussion an editor User:DonQuixote said he had not intentionally changed the figure from fifteen to thirteen but only done so accidentally while reverting other changes.) At one point an editor claimed in an edit summary that some unspecified a reference book said thirteen years, but they never attempted to clarify any further. No one has yet given good reason why it would make any sense to contradict the dialog of the film spoken by Jyn. -- 109.76.134.53 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Again editors are ignoring the dialog spoken in the film itself[1] for no apparent reason (promptly reverted[2] though, thanks). Please discuss and explain before making changes that contradict what Jyn says. -- 109.79.170.63 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost all ancillary and official material, state the events in the prologue occur 13 before the main events and Jyn’s “15 years” statement is an assumption made by the character. To be specific: the novelization, junior novelization, visual guide, and Star Wars: Timelines state as such. If you want to ignore that, fine, but a note would probably be warranted. MontztheMan (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, Star Wars: Timelines (pgs. 128 and 129) places the prologue in “13 BBY” before the events of the Solo: A Star Wars Story prologue and after the events of Star Wars: Most Wanted (a Solo tie-in novel). The book also places the main events of Rogue One at the very end of the year “1 BBY” just before the events of A New Hope, which takes place at very beginning of the next year (pgs. 180-190). “BBY” stands for “years before the Battle of Yavin” (the one where the first Death Star is blown up). I would consider this a retcon however, so deal with that however a retcon is handled for film summaries. MontztheMan (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the WP:FILMPLOT should be based on what is shown and said in the actual film itself. It was unclear why editors were attempting to contradict the primary source for no apparent reason. If based on other sources editors want to establish WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make changes or add footnotes that would be reasonable to discuss. My personal preference would be to rephrase to avoid the very specific time reference and instead focus on essential of _the plot_ but it seemed necessary to keep it. -- 109.79.166.12 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Budget complexities

The WP:LEAD section is supposed to summarize not supplant what is in the article body. The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is also to summarize the key facts of the article. Note that Template:Infobox film warns not to "cherry pick" budget figures. The article body does not yet discuss the various budget estimates that have been put forward for this film, as an encyclopedia should at least try to do. The complexities of the budget are not easily explained. Reliable sources differ, this information should be explained to readers not left out because it is inconvenient.

Caroline Reid, in February 2023 The Sunday Times reported on the UK film production tax breaks. The article explained that a production could write off "up to 25 per cent of the costs they incur in Britain" so there are at least records of how much was spent in the UK (and even then some costs are unclear as the rental cost of studio space is likely amortized across various productions) but it is highly unlikely that there were zero costs for the USA parts of the production. Caroline Reid, later wrote an article in Forbes magazine calling the Force Awakens the most expensive film ever and in that article there were graphic that specified that Rogue One had a gross total UK production cost $280.2 million (caveat: it was specified in US dollars, the UK £ sterling figures were not given, the time and rate used for currency conversion was not mentioned) and another graphic saying the net cost was $232.4 million (approximately ~20% reduction after in tax credits). Again this is only the UK production costs, and it would be strange to presume that the film had no other costs whatsoever in the US.

It might be appropriate to update the budget range to also list that higher total figure of $280.2 million that had to be spent (even if there were tax credits later, that much money still had to be spent up front) but it is not appropriate to oversimplify the intricacies of Hollywood Accounting and summarize the whole complex costs with a single figure, that is still unlikely to represent the full cost of the film. Especially not without a proper explanation in the article body. If editors again make good faith efforts to oversimplify I hope that others will restore preserve the necessary details and also eventually get around to explaining as best as possible some of the budget complexities in the article body. Budget figures are not as clear or simple as they might first seem. -- 109.76.192.96 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)