Talk:Enthiran - Wikipedia
5 people in discussion
 | Enthiran has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has had significant lobbying for poorly sourced, contradictory and false box office income figures. To include changes to any box office figures, information must be supported by at least two independent quality reliable sources. Such changes are likely to be challenged or reverted if not discussed in advance. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The figure given in the article lead is based on an estimated figure from the Times of India which states "Rajinikanth's last film Robot was a spectacular hit that released in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi and grossed more than Rs. 400 crores worldwide." There are no authoritative sources that would back up this rounded up and vague appearing estimate. As this figure makes Enthiran the highest grossing Indian film of all time, the figure needs better explanation and sourcing than being plonked into the text as if it were an encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The IndiaGlitz figure really doesn't make sense. Prior sources reported 250 crores being made by the film worldwide, how could the number be much lower now? EelamStyleZ (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
i expected this from Fæ
@ eelamstylez google "revenue" . revenue is different from gross...
SyberGod (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I believe I understand the difference, thanks. EelamStyleZ (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I think its better to put the domestic gross figure only (IBOSNetwork) and indicate that in the infobox. The actual overseas gross isn't available yet. The Times of India article is only based on estimations.--- Managerarc talk 15:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Hello, i have added a source from economic times, where sun itself estimates a 375 minimum combined share. The other sources talked about 400 crores. I have therefore left it at 400.--Wangond (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Why? 400 is less credible as an estimate as it is the highest rounded up estimate any of the sources give. Not only is the number currently quoted as an unqualified fact rather than a vague estimate, adding the highest figure you can find fails the guidance of WP:CHERRY. See #Economic Times by Times of India above that discusses the same source. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You can't give exact figures for Indian movies, because there is no national box office! Do you want to delete all these estimates from 1000+ Indian film articles? If so, please discuss it then at an appropriate place, not here, because this movie would be treated unfairly.--Wangond (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- This is a rather worn out argument, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF for the reasons why it is not accepted. Again, please read #Economic Times by Times of India above. Fæ (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- WP:OTHERSTUFF quote: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias". So Wikipedia recognises bias against this article, if treated unequally. And here you fail to recognise, that you have to include all film articles in your argumentation. You even block, when you get noticed by different users on the same issue. This is clear bias. I recommend you to take other steps, if you want to make a difference. As of now, there is a common practice to include figures from reliable sources, because there are no other possible ways to get numbers.--Wangond (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I have not blocked anyone as I am not an admin, you must be thinking of someone else. The guidelines for bias are slightly irrelevant here as there are plenty of Indian websites and newspapers already referenced. If you are arguing that because it is difficult to find reliable sources we should accept unreliable ones then I will continue to disagree. This article can quote a range of debatable figures cited from alternative sources (including the 375 crore and 400 crore figures) but should not cherry-pick a contested figure and present it as an established encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- No reference to any website or newspaper homepage, film magazine homepage, etc can give really verified numbers by official box office bodies like for instance theatre associations or similar bodies. All the box office sections, including this article, must be wiped out, cause nothing is 100% verifiable. If there is only one source out there, which gives a box office figure, this means only, there is only one unreliable source! It doesn't mean, that it's verified then or something similar! Please stop it already, and accept the realities here. Please move to dispute resolution of you want to remove everything related to box office figures in all Indian articles of Wikipedia. Thanks! --Wangond (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I have not blocked anyone as I am not an admin, you must be thinking of someone else. The guidelines for bias are slightly irrelevant here as there are plenty of Indian websites and newspapers already referenced. If you are arguing that because it is difficult to find reliable sources we should accept unreliable ones then I will continue to disagree. This article can quote a range of debatable figures cited from alternative sources (including the 375 crore and 400 crore figures) but should not cherry-pick a contested figure and present it as an established encyclopaedic fact. Fæ (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- WP:OTHERSTUFF quote: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias". So Wikipedia recognises bias against this article, if treated unequally. And here you fail to recognise, that you have to include all film articles in your argumentation. You even block, when you get noticed by different users on the same issue. This is clear bias. I recommend you to take other steps, if you want to make a difference. As of now, there is a common practice to include figures from reliable sources, because there are no other possible ways to get numbers.--Wangond (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- This is a rather worn out argument, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF for the reasons why it is not accepted. Again, please read #Economic Times by Times of India above. Fæ (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You can't give exact figures for Indian movies, because there is no national box office! Do you want to delete all these estimates from 1000+ Indian film articles? If so, please discuss it then at an appropriate place, not here, because this movie would be treated unfairly.--Wangond (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Why? 400 is less credible as an estimate as it is the highest rounded up estimate any of the sources give. Not only is the number currently quoted as an unqualified fact rather than a vague estimate, adding the highest figure you can find fails the guidance of WP:CHERRY. See #Economic Times by Times of India above that discusses the same source. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Based on your last comment we are in agreement that:
- We agree that there is only one source for either the 375 or 400 crore figures.
- We agree that the source is not independent and therefore is not a reliable source.
- We agree that the figure is an estimate and not based on any published or verifiable sales figures.
However there is no consensus that this article should be an exception to the verifiability policy and yet you insist on removing the dispute notice from the article. Fæ (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- "No reference to any website or newspaper homepage, film magazine homepage, etc can give really verified numbers by official box office bodies like for instance theatre associations or similar bodies." --Wangond (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- "All the box office sections, including this article, must be wiped out, cause nothing is 100% verifiable.°--Wangond (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- "You can't give exact figures for Indian movies, because there is no national box office!"--Wangond (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- "Please stop it already, and accept the realities here. Please move to dispute resolution of you want to remove everything related to box office figures in all Indian articles of Wikipedia. Thanks!"--Wangond (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Shouting does not help your argument. Insisting that all other articles must be fixed before this one is a fallacy that has already been explained to you. Please take time to read through Other stuff exists for an independent explanation. Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Why not write a separate article on the character Chitti and his powers and abilities? We can use some of the information from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinjanjaa (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see the point of that. In fact, the whole "Scientific accuracy" section is really not needed and mostly unsourced, but I left it for now. The article is supposed to be about the making and showing of the film, not a bunch of scientific and fictional facts. BollyJeff || talk 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think it is better to include this subsection under Reception section rather than Production section. Arfaz (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Why? Reception is how the film was "received" by audiences, box office, critical, etc. Not a place for random facts. See my comment above. BollyJeff || talk 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree this section is a bit random to be encyclopaedic. It describes plot elements which have little to do with an analysis of scientific accuracy. Asimov's laws of robotics are science fiction, not science and random technical jargon (such as the song using 'blue tooth') do not address the point and the fact that house fires may easily exceed 1000 centigrade is not mentioned even though we see the robot running around an entire building explosively burning (see Fire#Typical_temperatures_of_fires_and_flames). If anything the text could be trimmed to a couple of lines about the robot fantasy specifications and merge it into the plot section. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sun TV, being a listed company, published quarterly results disclosing the total cost of Enthiran to be ₹132 crore and total income ₹179 crore. We have to go by this figure only and avoid speculation by media. It also means the box office figure on Dasavathaaram is faulty and needs research.Kollyfan (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I disagree. The revenue made by the company is less than the total grossed by the film due to the theaters share of gross not earned by or reported by Sun. The document above says nothing about box office. BollyJeff || talk 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- That is speculation. The producer knows his product's worth more than the media or fans. Stop revert warring here please. Dasavatharam data is exaggerated, please help find correct data for that film.Kollyfan (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Now this is unnecessary, enough explanations have already been given. Gross is different from revenue. Almost all Indian film articles represent gross figures. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- That is speculation. The producer knows his product's worth more than the media or fans. Stop revert warring here please. Dasavatharam data is exaggerated, please help find correct data for that film.Kollyfan (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I placed the following question to all four projects associated with this article. Now we wait to see what happens:
Can I get a third party opinion of [edit] which is now locked? Can the company's revenue report of 179 crore be taken to mean the same as box office gross? Are the sources that were there already considered reliable? If not, what can be done, as it seems that aren't many sources for Tamil films deemed reliable. BollyJeff || talk 19:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- As has been pointed out around a hundred times during this talk page history (go check the archive pages) there are no reliable sources for box office income. If any figure is quoted in the article it is an unverifiable estimate or a fantasy figure from a promoter. If anyone does care to provide a third party opinion, this should be taken into account. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- But what is your opinion of the 179 figure from Sun? Is that a box office gross figure, as Kollyfan claims, or something else? Is it reliable? How would you define it? BollyJeff || talk 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It is a declared revenue figure from the view of production company, hence not box office income (i.e. ticket sales) and the relationship between the two may be down to accountancy trickery depending on how the CFO wants to split up cash flows. Detailed financial statements that are already out of date when the encyclopaedia article is about the film rather than the company is misleading and unhelpful for the reader who would be looking to compare films by box office sales. It is equally misleading to quote 400cr (or whatever other estimate that can be plucked from various pundit publications) as these have no foundation on real ticket sales as far as anyone can determine. Fæ (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- For a detailed review on the box-office figures have a look at this. Almost all high-grossing bollywood films use this as the primary source. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- This source above looks authentic. Assuming ₹179 crore is the amount received by the producer (after sales to distributors), then it is the investment for the distributors. But, media reports claimed that the film was directly released by the producers in most of the territories (meaning zero distributors).Kollyfan (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Three sets of figures are given in the above source - gross (highest figure), nett and distributor share. I know nett is derived after deducting entertainment taxes (which differs for each State). What is the difference between distributor share and nett?Kollyfan (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- User:Vensatry, User:Bollyjeff and User:EelamStyleZ77 seem like hard-core Rajinikanth fans. They have a conflict of interest in editing this article without POV. Anyway, if you guys believe ₹375 crore is authentic simply becoz a COO of the producers speculates on total takings at the box office, you would probably believe this fraud Harvard textbook as well that claimed erroneously that Sivaji - The Boss grossed ₹350 crore worldwide. It is a fine example of bogus records.Kollyfan (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- For a detailed review on the box-office figures have a look at this. Almost all high-grossing bollywood films use this as the primary source. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- It is a declared revenue figure from the view of production company, hence not box office income (i.e. ticket sales) and the relationship between the two may be down to accountancy trickery depending on how the CFO wants to split up cash flows. Detailed financial statements that are already out of date when the encyclopaedia article is about the film rather than the company is misleading and unhelpful for the reader who would be looking to compare films by box office sales. It is equally misleading to quote 400cr (or whatever other estimate that can be plucked from various pundit publications) as these have no foundation on real ticket sales as far as anyone can determine. Fæ (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- But what is your opinion of the 179 figure from Sun? Is that a box office gross figure, as Kollyfan claims, or something else? Is it reliable? How would you define it? BollyJeff || talk 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
What are you trying to say. See being a fan of Rajinikanth doesn't matter, any registered user would not do anything against the spirit of Wikipedia. Enough explanations have been already given. The article wasn't edited by those three editors alone. Numerous editors were involved in bringing up the article to GA status. Infact, I was not associated with this page before a month or so. And bringing up Sivaji is totally irrelevant to this context. If your claim being the case then it's not only a problem with this article, also with other Indian film(s) articles. This is not the first time such a problem being arised here so I suggest you go through the archives of this talk page where issues relating to budget, gross, etc are available. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, let me post my views here again. Well, that "official tally" is an official document, agreed, but it concerns the Sun TV Network company and NOT the film Enthiran! The number quoted there is the production company's net revenue, not the total gross revenue! The production company does not get the entire gross revenue of a film!! Don't you think all the theatres that screened the film will get revenues too?? Nowhere in your "official tally" it is mentioned that the film's total gross revenue was 179 crores! No, indeed there is no official source for the overall gross of the film, but in any case it has to be much more than the production company's net revenue. I hope you will understand now! Johannes003 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- OK, I get your point. I have modified the copy to include the new source link given above by User:Vensatry. My understanding is the producer sold the film for ₹179 crore (to distributors). Taran Adarsh is well quoted throughout Bollywood. So, his estimate of ₹255.5 crore seems reasonable. He even gives break-up for each language version across all markets.Kollyfan (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Anyway the figure {INR}}375 crore was nonsensical as the film was a failure in Bollywood (for which 800 prints were allocated). So, it means, Enthiran is second biggest Indian grosser (after 3 Idiots) based on global receipts. I have changed the copy accordingly.Kollyfan (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- As it stands now, Enthiran gross ₹255.5 crore and Dasavatharam gross ₹200 crore. But more work needs to be done on Dasa.Kollyfan (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- User:Kollyfan, I applaud your skepticism; since you brought up Sivaji, may I ask what makes you refute the film's gross revenue details from that textbook? To my knowledge, McGraw-Hill is a well respected publisher and would be fairly rigorous when it comes to factual accuracy. Anyway, your comment of us being Rajinikanth fans seems to be out of the blue. You're calling everyone who edits Enthiran Rajinikanth fans who lack a NPOV? Your accusations are totally immature. It's as if we could say that you're a Rajinikanth hater, finding it hard to accept anything about Rajinikanth films. My position on this issue can be found here and here. EelamStyleZ (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I've reverted it back to the last revision by User:Vensatry as of 13:13 9 June 2011. Perhaps a restriction to registered users only could be requested to prevent any unauthorized changes. Anyone can further discuss meaningful ways to strengthen the accuracy of the gross revenue information of Enthiran right on this talk page, or take it to Indian Cinema Task Force since its an issue for all Indian film articles. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I don't log in for a day and you pounce at the page removing links and reverting to your fancruft POV. Now you are claiming Sivaji grossed ₹350 crore? O man, you need to see a shrink. The Hindi population is 3 times larger than the combined populations of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.Kollyfan (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- You don't understand to what others say. Your intentions doesn't seem good. Just before a couple of days you changed the figure as ₹ 179 c and now to ₹ 255 and trying to dominate others. Now it's very clear that you are against this article and other editors. --Commander (Ping Me) 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I don't log in for a day and you pounce at the page removing links and reverting to your fancruft POV. Now you are claiming Sivaji grossed ₹350 crore? O man, you need to see a shrink. The Hindi population is 3 times larger than the combined populations of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.Kollyfan (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I've reverted it back to the last revision by User:Vensatry as of 13:13 9 June 2011. Perhaps a restriction to registered users only could be requested to prevent any unauthorized changes. Anyone can further discuss meaningful ways to strengthen the accuracy of the gross revenue information of Enthiran right on this talk page, or take it to Indian Cinema Task Force since its an issue for all Indian film articles. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, now how do we reconcile this 255 figure from boxofficeindia, which is considered a reliable source, with the 375 figure, which has several decent sources as well? BollyJeff || talk 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Where was BOI agreed to be a reliable source? Fæ (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I am sorry, make that "reliable estimated figures" to everyone who regularly edits Indian cinema articles. I know we have not come up with a solution that pleases you, and probably cannot. BollyJeff || talk 13:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Just for the record, note that the rebellious User:Kollyfan even admitted that BOI may be reliable. However, I think the sources we currently have for revenue and budget are adequate. There are multiple sources that echo the figures in those sites, so with respect to verifiability, it's better we keep our current sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The point being made here is not that we can point to some sources with numbers in them, but we should not just fill out the film infobox for box office figures without qualification as no box office income figures are officially published or verifiable for this film. The only figures available are unverifiable estimates from non-independent sources. As for revenue and budget these may be relevant to discuss, but they are somewhat tangential for the film as revenue will be declared corporate revenue (not box office income) and budget will be a figure that the production company have chosen to declare for this film (probably for tax purposes) which can be quoted but should be put in context. --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- When you say qualified, do you mean "(estimated)" like we have now or are you thinking of something else? We realize the problem, but need help with a solution. BTW, movies from any country would have the same problem that you described with budget. That will never be independently verifiable. BollyJeff || talk 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I mean "(estimated)" or an equivalent. Budget might be verifiable (such as by looking at the company's annual report) but this is still at best tangential to an article about a film unless the film is particularly notable on that basis. Fæ (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well it is a standard field in Template:Infobox_Film. If not considered important, it shouldn't be there. BollyJeff || talk 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree, the gross revenue should still be included in the infobox. We've got some sources that give what we are looking for so it wouldn't really make sense to have this article the only place where there is no data about it. I really don't see any negative implications with having estimated figures on the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Presumably you are suggesting adding the "total revenue" figure reported by Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd? This figure is not box office revenue or gross revenue and lacks any context in the section "'Enthiran' drives robust 3Q performance" and is not part of the financial summary, in fact at the time of the financial report a component of this figure was a forecast income flow rather than a currently booked revenue. If you feel you understand the figure, it might help if you could explain it clearly and why you think it is meaningful for an encyclopaedia article infobox without saying an awful lot more than "(estimated)". Fæ (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree, the gross revenue should still be included in the infobox. We've got some sources that give what we are looking for so it wouldn't really make sense to have this article the only place where there is no data about it. I really don't see any negative implications with having estimated figures on the article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well it is a standard field in Template:Infobox_Film. If not considered important, it shouldn't be there. BollyJeff || talk 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, I mean "(estimated)" or an equivalent. Budget might be verifiable (such as by looking at the company's annual report) but this is still at best tangential to an article about a film unless the film is particularly notable on that basis. Fæ (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- When you say qualified, do you mean "(estimated)" like we have now or are you thinking of something else? We realize the problem, but need help with a solution. BTW, movies from any country would have the same problem that you described with budget. That will never be independently verifiable. BollyJeff || talk 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The point being made here is not that we can point to some sources with numbers in them, but we should not just fill out the film infobox for box office figures without qualification as no box office income figures are officially published or verifiable for this film. The only figures available are unverifiable estimates from non-independent sources. As for revenue and budget these may be relevant to discuss, but they are somewhat tangential for the film as revenue will be declared corporate revenue (not box office income) and budget will be a figure that the production company have chosen to declare for this film (probably for tax purposes) which can be quoted but should be put in context. --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Just for the record, note that the rebellious User:Kollyfan even admitted that BOI may be reliable. However, I think the sources we currently have for revenue and budget are adequate. There are multiple sources that echo the figures in those sites, so with respect to verifiability, it's better we keep our current sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I am sorry, make that "reliable estimated figures" to everyone who regularly edits Indian cinema articles. I know we have not come up with a solution that pleases you, and probably cannot. BollyJeff || talk 13:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Here is another video by the same people (IBN Live) as one of the 375 sources, that claims 250 instead, and second all time Indian film, not first. I am not a Rajini fan; I only seek the truth. And here is another claim for the 200s. BollyJeff || talk 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Yes it undoubtedly took a lot of money at the box office but you will note that IBN live says "reportedly earned 250cr" without explaining where the figure comes from and BBOI's figures are unexplained estimates. No matter how many pundits and regurgitated "sources" you dig up, the fact is that there are no audited accounts and there is not even a consistent method of estimating box office income. Putting any of these numbers in the article infobox will always be cherry-picking an arbitrary estimate and unencyclopaedic. Fæ (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, unless several people object with good reasons, I am going to enhance the box office section with some of these newer sources, and replace the current estimates in the infobox with ranges. BollyJeff || talk 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree that any numbers we put in would be cherry picking, but what choice do we have when there are reports from major news agencies? Shouldn't mentioning the figure that the majority of these "major news agencies" report be an option? And no, I was not supporting the corporate financial report that Kollyfan was trying to include into the article, as you can see above, I was totally against that - I know that had nothing to do with the film's gross revenue. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- There is no reliable source for box office figures in India. North Indian media irrationally hype up their Hindi movies and belittle Southern films. Eros (the North Indian distributor, publicly listed) posted a higher overseas figure than the BBOI blogsite. I wonder, whether Bollyjeff is only here to make Southern films look poor, too, going by his suggestions and username. I remember, that Salman Khan said, that nobody should believe in numbers. And frankly, I don't believe, that Enthiran was a flop in North India, going by reports of UP/Delhi distributors published in DNA India. And many non-suspicious sources claim Endhiran was highest Indian grosser. So let's try to accept public listed producer estimates for the time being.--David Fraudly (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I suggest you avoid ad-hom argument, it will undermine any other point you are making.
- Sticking the arbitrary and unverifiable producer's estimate in the infobox is misleading even if we stick (estimated) against such a number as it is undoubtedly an inflated best guess for advertising reasons. I would much rather see no figures summarized in the infobox and instead (if anyone can be bothered to write it) have a section in the article which explains clearly the problem with these figures and then can illustrate with a range of conflicting example estimates (which are supported by the sources available). --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The whole of India (except Tamil Nadu) regards 3 Idiots as the top Indian grosser ever. That's sufficient consensus. Here we are debating about Enthiran as numero uno. What is worse is Dasavatharam flopped in both Hindi and Telugu and that is inflated based on one source, not corroborated by any other media. It's time to throw away egos and prejudices and stick to majority opinion. Taran Adarsh is a veteran. His estimates and rankings are widely circulated among the corporate world and film trade. If he is unreliable, who else is? I suggest tagging the article as disputed or not neutral until everything is resolved. Frankly Dasavatharam gross must be around ₹150 crore and Enthiran around ₹255.5 crore worldwide. Remember 3 Idiots made ₹100 crore in Mumbai metro alone. All this racist talk about non-recognition of southern accomplishments by Bollywood is just hearsay and must be brushed side. The producer's COO was thinking loud when he gave ₹375 crore as a ballpark to promote his film. That interview was broadcast within a fortnight of release. But the official corporate SEBI filing was published several months after release. Blindly pushing article to GA status creates museum pieces far removed from reality. Anyway, there is no point in arguing about bogus records. So I am not going to waste any more time here.
- Mr "KollyFan", Taran Adarsh is a veteran Bollywood pusher, and as such he is supported by Hindi media only. Noone else is interested in his fabricated sales numbers. South films beat Bollywood films not only in India, but overseas too. 75% revenues come from South: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-11-18/news/27638208_1_film-industry-small-budget-movies-farokh-balsara Bollywood is a defacto tiny industry besides all the Hindi media hype --David Fraudly (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The whole of India (except Tamil Nadu) regards 3 Idiots as the top Indian grosser ever. That's sufficient consensus. Here we are debating about Enthiran as numero uno. What is worse is Dasavatharam flopped in both Hindi and Telugu and that is inflated based on one source, not corroborated by any other media. It's time to throw away egos and prejudices and stick to majority opinion. Taran Adarsh is a veteran. His estimates and rankings are widely circulated among the corporate world and film trade. If he is unreliable, who else is? I suggest tagging the article as disputed or not neutral until everything is resolved. Frankly Dasavatharam gross must be around ₹150 crore and Enthiran around ₹255.5 crore worldwide. Remember 3 Idiots made ₹100 crore in Mumbai metro alone. All this racist talk about non-recognition of southern accomplishments by Bollywood is just hearsay and must be brushed side. The producer's COO was thinking loud when he gave ₹375 crore as a ballpark to promote his film. That interview was broadcast within a fortnight of release. But the official corporate SEBI filing was published several months after release. Blindly pushing article to GA status creates museum pieces far removed from reality. Anyway, there is no point in arguing about bogus records. So I am not going to waste any more time here.
- There is no reliable source for box office figures in India. North Indian media irrationally hype up their Hindi movies and belittle Southern films. Eros (the North Indian distributor, publicly listed) posted a higher overseas figure than the BBOI blogsite. I wonder, whether Bollyjeff is only here to make Southern films look poor, too, going by his suggestions and username. I remember, that Salman Khan said, that nobody should believe in numbers. And frankly, I don't believe, that Enthiran was a flop in North India, going by reports of UP/Delhi distributors published in DNA India. And many non-suspicious sources claim Endhiran was highest Indian grosser. So let's try to accept public listed producer estimates for the time being.--David Fraudly (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I agree that any numbers we put in would be cherry picking, but what choice do we have when there are reports from major news agencies? Shouldn't mentioning the figure that the majority of these "major news agencies" report be an option? And no, I was not supporting the corporate financial report that Kollyfan was trying to include into the article, as you can see above, I was totally against that - I know that had nothing to do with the film's gross revenue. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, unless several people object with good reasons, I am going to enhance the box office section with some of these newer sources, and replace the current estimates in the infobox with ranges. BollyJeff || talk 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
The film crossed 90 million $ according to http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/indias-kollywood-seeks-global-movie-spotlight-2293368.html --David Fraudly (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
In the page, it states that the movie opened up to 555 screens in Tamil Nadu but here it is stated 1400 screens. Which is correct? Please make necessary changes if needed. Secret of success (Talk) 14:32 18 June 2011 (UTC)