Talk:It Ends with Us (film)

Filming after the Hollywood strikes

We now know that the 2023 Hollywood labor disputes ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Production and distribution

194.117.2.103: You can discuss the issue here. I looked through the sources you added and none mentioned Columbia as a producer. FloorMadeOuttaFloor added the warning to the page so they can likely answer any questions you may have. Οἶδα (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@PepGuardi: Please join the discussion on the talk page. Do not engage in an edit war as you just did. None of the sources added mention Columbia as a producer, which is precisely what they are claiming to support. So how do you defend your restoration of this? Οἶδα (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you for the message. I mean there’s no need to any edit war, this is a typical case when the top 3 Hollywood outlets say the same thing, so I quite don’t get why the dispute started. SPWA is the responsible for every Sony-owned studio production acquisition, so whenever Columbia, TriStar, Affirm Films, Screen Gems, SPA, SPC, SPT or Crunchyroll produce/finance/acquire movies rights it’s always made through Sony Pictures. Sony Pictures is not a studio it’s instead the owner of those aforementioned studios. This is why we always read “Sony movie” when it comes to Spider-Man or Bad Boys for example, although they are produced by Columbia Pictures, but it’s a “Sony movie” because Columbia is owned by Sony and so outlets like THR, Deadline, Variety seem to prefer refer directly to Sony (the final owner) instead of the Sony division/studio responsible for the movies production. Anyways, in some reports they do refer to the Sony division/studio responsible for the movie. In this case, I’ll give some examples of Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter reports mentioning Columbia Pictures directly instead of only Sony:

1. :https://deadline.com/2024/04/blake-lively-it-ends-with-us-release-date-2-1235886431/ 2. :https://deadline.com/2024/05/it-ends-with-us-trailer-1235918968/ 3. :https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/it-ends-with-us-trailer-blake-lively-1235900633/ PepGuardi (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The dispute started because an IP editor added improperly cited material, which I properly reverted. You then restored this content.

You should discuss this with FloorMadeOuttaFloor, whose hidden message provided the following alert:

Do not shift Columbia to the production company list; Deadline Hollywood has stated that Sony acquired the film as a negative pickup, meaning it had little to no involvement in financing

Οἶδα (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

“Do not shift Columbia to the production company list”

the sources provided showed this request should not be there, because THR, Deadline and Variety are (the three of them) pretty clear saying It Ends with Us is a Sony movie. You asked me to show you they saying it’s a Columbia movie as well, and I provided you with sources. So I don’t get what is still to dispute… you read the sources, right? So let’s move on. Kind regards, PepGuardi (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This one seems to be going nowhere, so let me cite my own reasons for why Columbia belongs in the distributor section:

1. Sure, all three sources cited above mention Sony, yet they are ambiguous as to whether it was involved in a co-producing capacity. Generally, if studios are involved with the production of a project, the executives supervising the project are mentioned by such sources. However, since none of them mention any such executive, with all producers and EPs mostly representing either Wayfarer or Saks Picture Company, it is most safe to assume Sony may not be involved in a co-producing capacity.

2. The film's shoot was delayed by the 2023 WGA strike. Deadline Hollywood [1] states that Wayfarer tried to justify that the film was an independent production on the following criteria: Wayferer's involvement as a co-financier and the film being only a negative pickup for signatory Sony Pictures, the production fell under WGA guidelines. The point of a negative pickup deal is that a producer handles the entire production, and in some cases even marketing, costs, with a studio purchasing the film ("picking up its negatives") on a certain date for a fixed price to only distribute. Had Sony been directly involved in a producing capacity, the film would never have been eligible for a WGA waiver.

I hope this gives reason to justify. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Converse here)} 05:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you changed a stable version that all the sources confirm to be right using as argument a report from Deadline that basically says WGA does not consider it an “indie” (independent) movie. So WGA says it is not a indie movie and you’re here arguing that WGA and THR, Variety and Deadline reports are wrong.

“producer handles the entire production, and in some cases even marketing, costs, with a studio purchasing the film”

This is not the case, because:

1. The report itself says “WGA considers that the co-financing status of Wayfarer Studios was enough to consider that the production was within WGA guidelines”, so it was NOT entirely produced by Wayfarer Studios, it was only co-financed by Wayfarer Studios, meaning that Sony had a participation financing the movie, so the movie was not entirely independent of a WGA signatory studio (Sony) and therefore WGA considered that the production was within WGA guidelines, which means it had enough involvement from a WGA signatory Studio (Sony) so it cannot be considered independent. This is why they had to stop filming. Then you’re basically repeating here the same argument that Wayfarer Studios used and was rejected by WGA.

2. You’re using a Deadline report from “June 16, 2023 10:22am“ as if Deadline was reporting that the movie isn’t a Sony production. What is clearly wrong, because Deadline is just reporting that WGA rejected this argument from Wayfarer given that Wayfarer is only a co-financier and so it’s not producing the movie independently of a major Studio, therefore it’s not a “indie” (independent) movie. If you read the links I mentioned from Deadline, you’ll see they were published after “June 16, 2023 10:22am“ meaning that your source itself is saying something entirely different from what you’re trying to argue here. So you’re basically denying WGA decision (an official decision), THR, Variety and Dealine information. This is by no means reasonable. And I honestly think you should stop here.

1. :https://deadline.com/2024/04/blake-lively-it-ends-with-us-release-date-2-1235886431/ 2. :https://deadline.com/2024/05/it-ends-with-us-trailer-1235918968/ 3. :https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/it-ends-with-us-trailer-blake-lively-1235900633/

PepGuardi (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My point still stands. A negative pickup deal signifies that the main studio credited is only distributing, not producing. You're somewhat misinterpreting the general meaning of the article. The WGA may have rejected the appeal by Wayfarer, but that doesn't change the fact that this film was a negative pickup for Sony Pictures. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Converse here)} 13:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What is a negative pickup? Answer: It has nothing to do with under “Zero” cost.

“Negative in this sense means “negative film”, those things that filled cameras in the past. Before digital era, cameras used negative films to reveal photos and record movies.

So negative here refers basically to a movie filmed and recorded on the camera negative film. A movie done. Then the most basic meaning of “negative pickup” is picking a movie already done/shot.

A recent good example of a negative pickup is Monkey Man, entirely provided independently then sold by Netflix which gave up the pickup and then sold to Universal.

Now let’s take this typical case of a negative pickup by major studio with a Deadline Day exclusive report: https://deadline.com/2021/03/netflix-dev-patel-monkey-man-directorial-debut-deal-efm-1234713025/ (It says “EXCLUSIVE: Netflix has struck a deal in the region of $30M for most worldwide rights to Dev Patel‘s directorial debut Monkey Man, we can reveal. Filming has just finished on the movie”.

So a movie done independently made sold to Netflix, a typical “negative pickup”.

Now compare it with also this other exclusive news given by Deadline, now about It End with Us: https://deadline.com/2023/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-sony-wayfarer-studios-adaptation-colleen-hoover-it-ends-with-us-1235242008/amp/ ( it says “EXCLUSIVE: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are attached to star in the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel It Ends With Us, which is in development with Wayfarer Studios and Sony Pictures.”

So Sony is developing this movie with Wayfarer Studios since the very beginning, co-financing its production with Wayfarer Studios.

Then, it’s pretty clear why WGA rejected the Wayfarer appeal. It’s pretty obvious they would do it. So why on earth was Wayfarer trying to convince WGA that Sony involvement was just as a pickuper? Well, according to Deadline just half of the movie was filmed when the WGA strike started, so everyone was despaired trying to make the movie survive. My bet is that Wayfarer was trying to categorize it as a Sony pickup by arguing that the rights were optioned initially by Wayfarer Studios and just afterwards Sony was attached to help in the movie production co-financing it with Wayfarer. But still, too loose sense of negative pickup, not surprisingly it was rejected by WGA. Yet it’s understandable, at least they tried. PepGuardi (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue with the reasoning you have outlined here PepGuardi is that you are reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources, which constitutes original research and is not permitted on Wikipedia. So far you have cited sources which variously describe it as a Sony and/or Wayfarer Studios film, without an explicit statement unto their individual capacities. Then you cite a WGA decision to conclude what is not explicitly stated in any of the sources (i.e. that Sony is co-financier). It may seem "pretty clear" and "pretty obvious" what to conclude with these sources given the understanding you posted, but you are committing WP:SYNTH in the process. You claim that all the sources are in agreement, which is patently false. There is clearly significant variation and ambiguity in the sources. That is the origin of this entire dispute. You may be correct. I am not trying to deny that here. But we do not have enough definitive information at the present moment. And it is not helpful to pretend that we do. The film is being released in less than 3 weeks. We should be able to reliably source the production details relatively soon. Οἶδα (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We need more information, which as Οἶδα points out, the film will be released soon and we will then have all the necessary details to fill in the blanks. However, I will say it is telling that neither film posters have the Sony logo, but has the Columbia Pictures logo. Also copyrighted to Columbia. Mike Allen 22:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello I was waiting someone new get into the conversation, because yeah we had a stable version for almost 1 year till FloorMadeOuttaFloor starts a dispute on July few days ago 2024 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It_Ends_with_Us_(film)&oldid=1232891990), the page had a pretty stable version with Columbia since 2023. Of course everyone has the right to dispute information on Wikipedia, but a reasonable thing to do is keeping the stable version which was there before the dispute start, and discuss with the community on talk page…

I thank @MikeAllen for adding the copyright information, I was trying to find it. So many thanks. I’ll summarize here the reports from Deadline, The Hollywood Report and Variety:

Variety

1. Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Starring in Sony Adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s ‘It Ends With Us’. The film is in development at Sony Pictures, with Baldoni set to direct and executive produce under his Wayfarer Studios banner.

DEADLINE:

1. Sony Pictures has dropped the first trailer for It Ends With Us. The film, from Columbia Pictures and Wayfarer Studios, was originally slated for a February release but that was delayed when production shut down due to the WGA strike. https://deadline.com/2024/05/it-ends-with-us-trailer-1235918968/

2. Columbia Pictures and Wayfarer Studios It Ends With Us, directed and starring Justin Baldoni, and also headlining Blake Lively has moved from June 21 to August 9. Sony believes the film will be strong counterprogramming https://deadline.com/2024/04/blake-lively-it-ends-with-us-release-date-2-1235886431/

3. “EXCLUSIVE: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are attached to star in the film adaptation of It Ends With Us, which is in development with Wayfarer Studios and Sony Pictures.” https://deadline.com/2023/01/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-sony-wayfarer-studios-adaptation-colleen-hoover-it-ends-with-us-1235242008/amp/

The Hollywood Reporter

Baldoni also directs It Ends With Us, from Columbia Pictures/Sony and Wayfarer studios, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/it-ends-with-us-trailer-blake-lively-1235900633/

PepGuardi (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully a billing block will be released soon to put this to rest. After reading all of that, I'm more confused. Mike Allen 00:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @MikeAllen thank for the response, I mean I was hopping it was getting less confusing haha

I’ll share with you how I’m interpreting the reports. I don’t know if you agree but it seems like sources mentioned are generally making a distinction between Sony and Columbia based on Sony is responsible for distributing and marketing the movie and Columbia is mentioned along with Wayfarer as the one who made/produced the movie (or rather where the movie is from).

Given that Sony is not exactly a production studio, it is instead the owner of studios that are responsible for creating/producing movies (those likes of Columbia, TriStar, Screen Geems, Affirm Films etc), we may see a distinction made by the outlets.

Then for example:

Variety quote “The film is in development at Sony Pictures… meaning the movie is being developed (therefore produced) at Sony Pictures (a conglomerate of Studios).

The 1. quote from Deadline: “Sony Pictures has dropped the first trailer for It Ends With Us. The film, from Columbia Pictures and Wayfarer Studios. Here we have that aforementioned relation. Sony releasing/marketing a movie “from Columbia”. The 2. quote seems to have the same implicit reasoning.

In the 3. Deadline quote “it is in development with Wayfarer Studios and Sony Pictures” reaffirms the responsibility over the movie development (so its production) was with Sony and Wayfarer.

So we could say that it’s unreasonable to deny (considering those reports) that Sony played had a role in the development. Could this happened to be a conclusion easier to agree? PepGuardi (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not unreasonable to deny when you are synthesising numerous sources that feature significant variation and ambiguity. Parsing every linguistic variation from Deadline, THR and Variety is honestly not helping. I suspect you may be correct in this case but my suspicion is not a reliable source. We should wait for the film to be released and finally remove all ambiguity. Οἶδα (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the stable version should likely remain until this discussion is resolved. Or that the information be removed altogether. But you are again avoiding what I already mentioned above: So far you have cited sources which variously describe it as a Sony and/or Wayfarer Studios film, without an explicit statement unto their individual capacities. Just "with"s and "at"s and "from"s. The information we have is too ambiguous at the present moment. Οἶδα (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with MikeAllen and Οἶδα's statements here. Synthesis of ambiguous information as well as a lack of sources is making it even harder to come to a uniform consensus; hunches or intuition won't help either. Best solution for now could be to retain the current revision and wait for preview or BO reports on this film so that it is clearer where exactly this one belongs. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Converse here)} 07:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)