Talk:Starship Troopers (film)

Inflation adjust figures in Infobox

Inflation adjusted figures for box office gross and budget should not be included in this article. Such figures might be relevant in a list or if making a particular comparison (like the budget of this film versus Star Wars twenty years earlier). They were boldly added in a recent edit that made many substantial improvements to the article but just because you can add this information does not mean you should. The figures should definitely not be included as a hidden footnote in the Infobox. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". (Footnotes are not an a good reason to keep irrelevant information either.) If editors disagree and believe the inflation adjusted figures are actually relevant then they should be included as normal text somewhere in the article body, such as the Production or Box office sections, but I do not see a good reason to include these figures at all. -- 109.78.195.60 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a strange objection to have that they can't exist at all in the article. They provide useful context for people who want it. It's a film that was released before a bunch of people alive today were born, and a 100 million budget today might not see much but with inflation it provides contemporary context for its cost. It's something I've done on other articles without issue and I don't see the issue here either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that between the rising production costs and inflation, that it helps to see and old budget figure in today's dollars. That quickly pay gives an idea of price of production in a easy to compare figure. Ten million as a budget without inflation adjustment could be an epic film of the 1960s, or a art house picture in the 2019s. --Masem (t) 17:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen a few cases where editors have added inflation adjusted figures before and I have been very skeptical. It just seemed irrelevant to point out that after several years a big number is now a slightly bigger big amount of money. If there is some larger point being implied[1] (like for example a character being offered a month's pay for one day's work) then spell it in clear prose instead of hinting at it and leaving readers to infer some vague point from the numbers. That the numbers were hidden away in a footnote in the Infobox only reinforced my view that it was of low relevance, otherwise it would not have been hidden. It's a strange objection to have that they can't exist at all in the article. I didn't say "can't" I am saying if it is not relevant it should not be included. I am challenging you to show relevance if you want to include it, to show that the specific numbers matter. Big numbers are still big numbers. If you want to make a comparison to a film from twenty years earlier or a film from twenty years later then please do go ahead and clearly make that comparison somewhere relevant in the article body. (The article already does a great job of comparing the budget of this film to the notoriously expensive Waterworld.) If you want to say the $100 million budget was big for the time then say that openly as prose. Maybe it would be relevant to include the figures and explain that $100 million then inflation adjusted to approximately $170 million now, makes the very big budget of this film comparable to the $200+ million big tentpole summer films of today (2022) then go ahead and say it as prose in the article body. But I think it will probably stick out awkwardly because it is not actually all that relevant. There could be reasons for showing the inflation adjusted figures in the article body (I dont yet think there are) but hiding them in the Infobox goes against the guidelines WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" ... so if there are other articles doing this too please don't.

The rest of Darkwarriorblake's work on this article has been excellent. It might seem harsh to focus on this small detail but when I see editors including inflation adjusted figures I fear it might be starting a trend and I would not like to see good articles setting that example. The article on track to become a {{Good article}} any day now. -- 109.77.202.9 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree that mentioning it directly in prose would be awkward, that's why it's in a footnote for those who want it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Touchstone is not a distribution label.

Just because Disney produced a film like Starship Troopers under the Touchstone Pictures label, it doesn't mean it is a distribution label. That distinction belongs to Buena Vista Pictures. I already had a bellyful from an IP user who tried to do the same thing with every Touchstone movie a back in 2015. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A) You should have started this discussion after my last edit which mentioned WP: BRD and before your edit where you edit warred the content back in.

B) If what you say is true, you'd be adding a source with it

C) There are two sources in the article that say its Touchstone, one of which is the Los Angeles Times and says " The deal calls for TriStar, a unit of Sony Pictures Entertainment, to release the film domestically while Touchstone, a Walt Disney Co. banner, will distribute the film in foreign markets."

At any point after the first reversion, you should have checked the info or provided a source saying otherwise. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I only reverted two times. Not three. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, what about the other points? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because it says Touchstone handled distribution internationally, it doesn't mean we assumed Touchstone is a distribution label. It doesn't work either way. As of this moment, I no longer have interest in this article or the film itself. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

While Darkwarriorblake isn't wrong about Touchstone distributing internationally, I found a description of Buena Vista International (https://d23.com/a-to-z/buena-vista-international/) on the official D23 website stating: "Occasionally, BVI will handle the foreign distribution of non-Disney films, including such titles as Die Hard with a Vengeance, Face/Off, Starship Troopers, and Air Force One." Additionally, a page regarding Starship Troopers (https://d23.com/a-to-z/starship-troopers-film/) on the same website states, "A co-production of Tristar and Touchstone Pictures, distributed abroad by Buena Vista International." I suggest both Touchstone and BVI be added as international distributors with appropriate sources to back them as proof. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Banter here)} 09:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Tagging Betty Logan, Erik, TheJoebro64, zmbro, SNUGGUMS because I know they have a background of solid fact checking and are impartial. If you guys get a chance are you able to give an opinion on this because various people keep editing the article infobox adding in whatever they think is right, without a source and in contradiction of the sources currently in the article. We could use a definitive opinion on it. The two sources I have at the moment are:

• This excerpt from The Making of Starship Troopers by Paul M. Sammon which was written during production
• This LA Times article released at the same time as the film
• It's not in the article but this AFI page lists Tristar as a distributor, I assume it doesn't mention international distributor because it's American centric

Thank you Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Among the sources Darkwarriorblake gives for Touchstone, Los Angeles Times is the only one that explicitly says it distributed the movie, so that would be the most useful of the three to implement. That Sammon piece mentions parent company Disney distributing it in non-US markets, but gets cut off mid-sentence. AFI doesn't help the case here by only listing TriStar for distribution. As for D23, both mentions very clearly state BVI (also a Disney entity) by name. Perhaps the best compromise is to list Disney as a distributor without naming any divisions? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Variety in 1997 mentions the studio Sony Pictures Releasing and Starship Troopers. The New York Times mentions that the parent company is Sony Pictures and that the film was "released by Tri-Star Pictures and Touchstone Pictures". No mention of Buena Vista. Variety review calls it "A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of a TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures presentation". (I don't really know the difference between "release" and "presentation" here, honestly.) It also mentions, "Buena Vista Intl. is distributing in overseas territories." I really don't blame anyone for this confusion about what company or companies to use. Just try not to have strong feelings about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree here. TPalkovitz (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You agree with what? There are several sources saying Touchstone and Tristar immediately above. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I was agreeing with FloorMadeOuttaFloor. The source that the user provided backs up the claim that BVI provided international distribution. TPalkovitz (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the BBFC it was distributed by Buena Vista in the UK. IIRC All Disney (+subsidiary) films were distributed by Buena Vista in the UK, ranging from Aladdin to, erm, Pulp Fiction. Not too sure what the case was for other countries. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

So I think we need to clarify some stuff for posterity:

• The US distributor is unequivocally Tri-Star. The book says it is, AFI says it is, the last thing you see in the film is "A Tri-Star release", and the LA Times article says so. It's not Sony (via Tri-Star) or any crap like that, it's Tri-Star. End of.
• The book says Disney retained foreign distribution rights, this is presumably via Touchstone since they own Touchstone and Touchstone co-financed the film equally. The LA Times also says Touchstone. The only reason the international distributor is listed in this article is because they also co-financed the film so it seems notable. If Disney, via Buena Vista, released the film in some locations, that wouldn't replace Touchstone or mean Touchstone didn't distribute or didn't use Buena Vista's services to do so, but Buena Vista wouldn't be listed in the infobox as an International distributor because they didn't co-finance the film and it's not a British, French, or other regions film beyond the U.S. I think I'm just going to remove it entirely at this point because I'm sick of dealing with it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Touchstone is an INTERNATIONAL distributor; films outside the US. The film is only from the US, and that's only what's allowed on the infobox. It doesn't matter if they were a production company too, doesn't make them applicable to be mentioned in the infobox.

Second, Sony Pictures Releasing is the distributor for ALL Sony Pictures films. I have no idea why every film to this day says "A Columbia Pictures/TriStar Pictures/etc. Release" but it's true. Also AFI has proven to sometimes misinform, especially outside their "first 100 years" that they cover (ex. Sinister 2 puts the wrong cast and has an executive producer listed with the rest of the producers, and Hulk put Marvel Studios instead of Marvel Enterprises before deleting it all entirely now for some reason). In BFI, which I've personally seen is more reliable, they put TriStar and Touchstone as "production companies" and Sony Studios (aka Sony Pictures Releasing) as the "studio" which is their term for distributor.

Lastly, don't come to my talk page and act like I don't know what I'm doing. I've done my research and can admit when I'm wrong. I'm here to fix it. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If you've done your research, why don't you have any sources, and are just claiming all the legit sources we have are wrong? "Oh, AFI says that? Well this one time it put an executive producer with the rest of the producers." BFI literally just says "studio", and the film was filmed at Sony Studios Culver City. There is no indication that stands for distributor whatsoever, but there are multiple sources that say Tri-Star. The film literally ends with "A Tri-Star release". So I won't go to your talk page to tell you that you don't know what you're doing, because I can tell you here that you don't know what you're doing.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That was only the tip of what AFI has done wrong. Also, I've told you already why it just says A TriStar Release, weren't you listening? If it was done your way, EVERY Sony film would have the production company on the distributor, but it isn't like that because, despite the lack of sources for any Aony movie saying SPR, we should know better. Since you asked, 1 and 2 credit their photos to SPR, while Box Office Mojo credits to Sony Pictures Entertainment, and do you want me to show more that say SPE, Sony Pictures, etc. like with BFI? Not to mention anybody who even looked up SPR's Wiki article should know by now that they are THE distributor. I tried compromising by putting (under TriStar Pictures), but you really couldn't let it go. We really need another guy's opinion on this. IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to share my findings earlier here, but I have no idea if that helps. First, I'd recommend looking at Variety as an industry trade paper that can help sort out details. First, this talks about TriStar Pictures being a studio under the parent company Sony Pictures Entertainment. This says, "...Sony Pictures Releasing, managing theatrical distribution chores for the motion picture group of Columbia, TriStar and Triumph..." This says, "Buena Vista also had a split-rights deal on Par's 'Face/Off' and Sony's 'Starship Troopers.'" This mentions Starship Troopers being distributed outside of the US by Buena Vista International. This mentions Sony as the studio behind the US release with no mention of TriStar, Touchstone, or Buena Vista (in direct connection with Starship Troopers). This mentions more US release info with just Sony and TriStar with no mention of Touchstone. At this time, not finding a strong case for Touchstone as a distributor for the US release. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at that Sammon excerpt it says that Disney handled foreign distribution while "Sony/TriStar" handled US distribution, so by the looks of that Touchstone would not be listed as a distribution company. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To add on, this says that the presentation credit comes first and that it belongs to the distributor. That is reinforced here, though it says "generally recognizes the film's distributor". It's possible that the Touchstone/TriStar "release" here has a different context. Since we already have a person-name "production" for this film, I don't know if "release" for TriStar and Touchstone was intended as something between "presents" and "production". If that is the case, it may simply reflect them as production companies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, I've confused myself about who presented or released what. So the billing block says, "TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures present a Jon Davison production". In my initial comment, I mentioned that Variety's review of the film wrote, "A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of a TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures presentation of a Jon Davison production." I don't know how to fit these pieces together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine, one more thing... This calls Sony a distributor and says that Starship Troopers is on its 1997 release slate. If Variety is calling the film a Sony release of two companies "presenting" a film, does that mean that "presents" here does not mean distributor? I am not seeing any box-office coverage that recognizes Touchstone in collaboration with TriStar as a distributor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See these results for how Variety writes releases of presentations of productions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This shows Starship Troopers to be the only film that has these three companies named together. However, this mentions The Prestige as "A Buena Vista release of a Touchstone Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures presentation of a Newmarket Films and Syncopy Production." To work with that example that involves two different studios, this mentions that "Disney would handle domestic distribution and Warner Bros. would handle foreign". Since the Variety review is US-based, that connects Buena Vista being the arm of Disney that distributed The Prestige in the US, even though it is a "Touchstone Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures presentation". So I feel like the Variety review for Starship Troopers saying "A Sony Pictures Entertainment release" recognizes Sony/TriStar (no idea which label to use) as the US distributor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input/thorough research Erik. Based on the info, I think that TriStar is the only one that should be in the infobox. Sony might get mentioned but it owns TriStar so by default it gets mentioned alongside it, it's like saying Coca Cola released Ghostbusters. Alongside the links above, the film also opens with the Tri-Star logo, before leading into Tristar/Touchstone presents during the credits, but only Tri-Star gets the logo, and the very end of the film is the Tri-Star logo saying "A Tri-Star release", both Tri-Star start and end images have "A Sony Pictures company" at the bottom. It's undoubtedly Tri-Star. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I had another idea, to look at the Academy Awards database here (since I saw some search results mention distributors as part of listing awards). For The Prestige, we have "Touchstone Pictures/Warner Bros. Pictures Production; Buena Vista". For Starship Troopers, we have "TriStar Pictures and Touchstone Pictures Production; TriStar". So "TriStar" seems right. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, the infobox guidelines clearly state for film distribution that if there are two distributors (regardless of what country the film originated), include the domestic distributor (which is Sony/TriStar in the US) and the foreign (which is Disney/BVI). See WP:FILMDIST. I have seen the talk page, and I have read it, and I am in favor of including Buena Vista as an international distributor. TPalkovitz (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Turns out you're actually involved in this discussion, which makes it worse that you're ignoring both it and the hidden notes Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

TPalkovitz you've been asked to use the talk page 3 times and the edits you're making are specifically covered by this existing discussion of which you were a part. It was determined not to use the foreign distributor at all because people keep adding country qualifiers to it and it led to fighting, but the note you keep deleting also says the content is sourced in the article. We don't dig down to individual distributors, it doesn't matter if Warner Bros used McDonalds to distribute a film, we have a source saying "Touchstone receiving all distribution rights to the film outside of the United States and Canada". If they used Bob from down the road, it wouldn't matter, just like we can't say that Buena Vista was used in every international company either. I wouldn't mind so much if not for the fact that discussion exists, the hidden note exists, and the content is sourced right there in the article. And yet you STILL redid the edit. It's also completely unnecessary and inappropriate to add countries in brackets next to the distributor, it makes the infobox look messy and crowded, especially when you add brackets and then add a second distributor working for the first distributor, that is what the body text is for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am trying to help improve this article. I only deleted the note twice, and added another one to further back up the source that I added. The note clearly states, "do not change without a source". And I did use a source, and as I've said WP:FILMDIST states if there is more than one distributor, include the domestic and foreign. Hidden notes remain irrelevant in this case. Which said source I used (D23) clearly states, "distributed abroad by Buena Vista International." Furthermore, several film articles that have multiple distributors have countries with parentheses to indicate the country that the film was distributed. TPalkovitz (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP: OTHERSTUFF it doesn't matter if other articles do stuff. Per my previous comment it's unnecessary to know who distributed what and where in the confines of the infobox and so parentheses are not needed not recommended or mentioned at all in FILMDIST. The source you used has been used in this exact discussion and it provides no context, it could mean on home video for all we know, it could mean exclusively in the UK, it doesn't provide enough information and it doesn't mention the US distributor at all. The lack of context or clarity is a fundamental flaw in the source, it is unlikely it distributed to every single location outside of the USA as some countries have their own major distributors so it makes sense why Touchstone is given credit in the reliable references I'll discuss next. We have two sources, including the well respected New York Times, providing a contemporary context that states "The deal calls for TriStar, a unit of Sony Pictures Entertainment, to release the film domestically while Touchstone, a Walt Disney Co. banner, will distribute the film in foreign markets." Maybe, as a Walt Disney Co. Banner, Touchstone used Buena Vista International's resources to distribute but that's not what the source says and it wouldn't matter since we can clearly trace Touchstone as the top level distributor, it doesn't matter who or what resources they used to accomplish that. Touchstone is not in the infobox per this very discussion because it was determined it's an AMerican film, list the American distributor as people kept adding countries in parentheses or deleting one or the other and it made it easier to avoid dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs)

I should point out that in the production section, there is a sentence that states, "An agreement was reached between TriStar, its parent company Sony Pictures, and Disney to produce Starship Troopers via TriStar and Disney's Touchstone Pictures, splitting the budget costs and box office profits evenly, in exchange for Touchstone receiving all distribution rights to the film outside the United States and Canada." This sentence seems to contradict what this topic really is about how Touchstone is not a distribution label, even though there are sources that state otherwise (Los Angeles Times, along with the 1997 book The Making of Starship Troopers by Paul M. Sammon). TPalkovitz (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Copy-Edit in Progress

Based on the request of @Darkwarriorblake:, I just started copy editing this article.

If you have any feedback/questions/remarks/etc., I would kindly ask you to put them here as long as the CE is in progress, in stead of starting an edit war.

Kind regards, Call me Matt - Bling Collector 15:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Media literacy discourse

Recently, the film has become a hot topic in online discourses on Media Literacy, due to attempts made by actual fascists to claim the film and misrepresent it's themes. The topic is part of much larger discourse on misrepresentation of various media by right wing and far right pundits. Are there any reliable sources that cover this subject, and if there are, is it worth mentioning it? 46.97.170.120 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Not "based on" book

The statement that the film was "based on the 1959 novel by Robert A. Heinlein" is misleading. The film was already being developed independently under a different title when it was discovered that it had great similarities to the book. Adjustments were made to bring it closer to the novel and the title was changed, and Heinlein was paid for permission. Still the movie plot deviates in substantial ways from the book. A more accurate description would be "partly based". The article intro itself says this plainly. Zaslav (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a percentage agreed upon which the term "based" can be used, just like "based on a true story" can result in a story that is completely different to the real incident. The resulting film is based on the book regardless of its origins. I feel like if we use "partly based" it looks unwieldy, and realistically where does that end, as most adaptations deviate from the source material greatly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)