Talk:Blockbuster (entertainment)

Intro
The term was in use prior to "Star Wars". I remember it being used in the early 1970s, although perhaps the earliest use I can remember is that in the 1970s rock hit "Blockbuster" by The Sweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.183.185 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 April 2005. (UTC)

major changes
SOMEONE PLEASE RUN SPELL CHECK ON THIS "ARTICLE"! It's horrid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.148.52 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any description in any dictionary or anywhere online that referred to thatres going out of business as the etymology for blockbuster. Even if this were the case, it would only have acquired that meaning after the use of it in WWII to describe block-busting bombs (bombs capable of destroying an entire city block). It also certainly predates Star Wars, and I if it must be mentioned that a lot of people think that the term comes from people stretched around the block, it should be done so in the context that this is incorrect (unless ofcourse some further research shows that to be the case).

Charles (Kznf) 00:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The bomb derivation is often cited but there is little evidence to link the name of the bomb to the usage to denote hit. At least one well-researched source (THE BIG PICTURE: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood by Edward Jay Epstein) claims the term was in use as early as the 1920s and supports the line-around-the-block explanation; it seems possible that the nickname for the bomb may have actually been a pun on this term rather than the other way around.  I've left in all the suggested etymologies and restructured a bit.  I did leave out the "Star Wars" claim for the reason you suggest. Jgm 19:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good changes, thank you. My only objection is that I think the last sentence falls under: Avoid weasel terms, and sounds very POVish to me.  Better to leave it out, or if it must be there list a prominent critics objection with reference. Charles (Kznf) 17:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was never happy with that line myself; however it does seem as though the article should mention the fact that the development of the blockbuster approach is seen as a negative in some circles, with possible mention of the pejorative term "blockbuster mentality". I've added a different version of the sentence framed by some history, see what you think.   Jgm 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very nice changes. A much better article. Charles (Kznf) 17:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Blockbuster: Origins
124.186.236.172 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris Slee (http://www.geocities.com/chris_slee/)

I was taught in film school that the term blockbuster originated in the 1930 and 40s. Cinemas used to buy films in monthly or quarterly blocks rather than individually. A cinema could only buy from their own supplier/distributor. Anyone who bought from another distributor had the block contract cut. When Hollywood started producing big movies such as Gone With The Wind, the cinemas rose up and revolted until they were allowed by the studio/distributors to buy movies outside their blocks - ie: blockbusters.

The modern idea of the summer blockbuster, we were taught, dates to about the time of - if not the actual release of Jaws. The film's big budget and popularity started a trend inn which every stuio tried to match Jaws success. Jaws was released at a time when studio were complain, like today, of declining film profits from a jaded public who simply didn't go to the cinema anymore. It also fits in with the one thing the studios figured TV couldn't do - big explosions on screen.


 * Block booking was in effect from the 1920s to 1948 and was not ended by the cinemas but by the supreme court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.118.0 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Merger
It looks to me like the only thing needed from Blockbuster motion picture is the external links; the content seems to be covered better here. Jgm 03:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved the redirect back here and moved the links and a few other bits of content from the Blockbuster motion picture article; this is the logical place for it as this entry covers the term for other media beyond film while including all the details about film. Jgm 15:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In the future - when you merge a page - make sure you have an admin merge the page histories, also. Otherwise you will be in violation of the GNU copyright. Davodd 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember that; seems like a flaw in the system, to be honest. Plus I thought all histories remain available, don't they? Jgm 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial reasons
Another term blockbuster may have been used for was in the early eras when a "family block" was sold to a minority family. It was not limited to african-americans, but any non-white immigrant at the time.

This is a circulated "myth" in the real-estate world.

206.248.176.154 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Saporis

Satirical documentary
In the last paragraph, Rocky is called a satirical documentary. I don't think it was one the last time I checked. Also, mockumentary might be a better word than "satirical documentary", to describe Borat. Rob-R-TOR-3 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another possible definition
I have no idea how I'd source it, but it's been my understanding that "blockbuster" was first used in the movie industry to describe Jaws, and because it was one of the first movies where the line to get in went around the block.

Seeing how nothing else is sourced, should we add this possible definition? Ynot4tony (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
"Jaws was the first film to exceed $100,000,000 in ticket sales and for a time this was the point at which a film could be designated a blockbuster in North America.[3] However earlier films such as Gone with the Wind (1939) and The Sound of Music (1965) easily passed this threshold.[4]"

How can earlier films have passed the $100,000,000 threshold if Jaws was the first film to pass this threshold? Does this have anything to do with the difference between 'theatrical rentals' and 'domestic gross' (http://www.ldsfilm.com/misc/lds_Top5_boxoffice.html)? AstroMark (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the article, since it's obvious that it wasn't the first. Chris 42 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with theatrical rentals check 1975 in film under events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:601A:4900:18E9:50AC:B9A1:A00F (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Profit margin and ROI
Profit margin and ROI aren't the same, and who did the math to with 266000% that's insanely wrong. Also Deadpool isn't a low budget movie comparable to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.53.137 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Blockbusters aren't defined by ROI. A film with a high ROI could be a blockbuster, but it isn't a blockbuster just because it was a great investment. I took that WP:OR out. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports Trades
Certain major trades in professional sports are described as "Blockbuster trades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.6 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

how do you know if a movie is financially successful?
How do you know if a movie is financially successful? I'm guessing that the box office sales have to top the budget. But if a film makes 1 million more then the budget does that mean the film is considered financially successful?
 * A film can derive revenue from several different streams (box-office/DVD/TV/streaming/merchandise tec) and there can be many costs to cover (budget/marketing/distribution fee/theater cut/profit participation) so it is not simple to work out if a film has been successful or not. However, if a film goes into profit on its theatrical run (i.e. it grosses double its budget and marketing costs) then it will generally be regarded as successful; however, films can still be successful even if they don't achieve this. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter what number the budget is? you say to double the budget when it hits theatres?

How do you know if a film is profitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.208.254 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

pop culture
Popculturewoohoo! (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)== Pop culture ==

When it comes to films, music, tv shows, books etc how do you know if certain things are successful with the money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popculturewoohoo! (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

– This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:BROAD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blockbuster (entertainment) → Blockbuster
 * Blockbuster → Blockbuster (disambiguation)
 * Support, the term is used to indicate a film has gained a wide paying audience and significant popularity (i.e. Tomorrowland, well maybe not that one). The other primary candidate, the video chain, was named for this descriptor, and has failed (it has one store left), so this page seems to be primary per long-term significance as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Blockbuster, the brand, receives significantly more page views then Blockbuster the term. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator since the core meaning of "blockbuster" is this article's scope. The retailer's name was derived directly from this core meaning. While the retailer has been known for some time, it is receding into the annals of history, and the core meaning will continue to be persistent. There are the following books and articles about the broad topic:
 * Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment (2013)
 * Creating Blockbusters! How to Generate and Market Hit Entertainment for TV, Movies, Video Games, and Books (2012)
 * Blockbusters and Trade Wars: Popular Culture in a Globalized World (2009)
 * "Blockbusters: The economics of mass entertainment" (1981), Journal of Cultural Economics
 * "Integrated Entertainment Marketing: Creating Blockbusters and Niche Products by Combining Product, Communication, Distribution, and Pricing Decisions" (2018), Entertainment Science
 * "Bestsellers and Blockbusters: Movies, Music, and Books" in Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture (2014)
 * However, I would recommend that this article be expanded to encompass more media than just film. It's possible that for just film, blockbuster film could be a sub-article of this one. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Malformed move request: What's going to happen to Blockbuster, which is currently a disambiguation page? Steel1943  (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've boldly updated the nomination to cover both moves. Unless I'm missing something, the only related move that would happen is moving the disambiguation page to have its own disambiguation term. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Erik Yes, thank you. I forgot the other one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose |Blockbuster_(entertainment)|Blockbuster_(TV_series)|Blockbusters_(British_game_show) per pageviews No Primary In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NOPRIMARY; see Blockbuster (retailer). 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPRIMARY says to determine if there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the criteria is in respect to usage and/or long-term significance. "Blockbuster" has a core meaning, and no one has refuted that. We would not disambiguate Apple just because Apple Inc. has many more page views. All Blockbuster-labeled topics are directly derived from this broad concept. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're suggesting is that dictionary definition = long term significance, and that's not how WP:DPT works. Hulk is an article about a superhero (with Hulk (ship type) getting the disambiguation tag); ditto for Dell, a computer company, and Dell (landform). 162 etc. (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blockbuster doesn't fit "dictionary definition". A Hollywood or Bollywood blockbuster is an event, a historical event, a real thing in the real world. The release of the first Star Wars film and the lines at the theater it attracted actually occurred, and events like it have entered film history (Gone With the Wind comes to mind). What else is there to call it? Blockbuster seems the correct descriptor which nothing else would fit. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said that "dictionary definition = long term significance". A term can be just a dictionary definition, which would be something like Inception and inception. Here, I am arguing that the common definition "blockbuster" has an encyclopedic scope, meaning that there is more than just a definition. I've demonstrated that above. It's clearly an encyclopedic topic that has long-term significance; it was known before the retailer (which took its name from that concept), and it continues after the retailer's demise. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with IIO. The retailer, despite being 99% dead, is clearly of far more interest to readers. And it clearly has a large influence on popular culture to this day. I think the present setup is fine. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the retailer has mostly died, this subject is (and has already been) the subject with long term significance, and should be the primary topic. We should also note the US bias that the English Wikipedia tends to have, Blockbuster was largely an American retailer with only limited European presence in its heyday. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What is going on |Blockbuster_(entertainment) here? It seems that the past pageviews of the retailer article were not saved, or something. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blockbuster (retailer) had been moved from Blockbuster LLC. See page views |Blockbuster_(entertainment)|Blockbuster_LLC Esolo5002 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Blockbuster seems to be in flux, but at no point would this seem to indicate that there's a primary topic. Maybe re-examine the issue after two more months when we get a better sample? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:BROAD and Erik. I was under the impression that Wikipedia had moved on from using page views to determine the primary topic when one topic carried far more encyclopedic weight. The term "blockbuster" is predominantly associated with highly successful—predominantly Hollywood produced—films (and more generally highly successful works in other media) and the retailer took its name from that association. The concept predated the retail chain and will outlive it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm often sympathetic to the concept of a primary topic for highly encyclopedic long-term significant topics, e.g. bell or apple. I have to say I'm not so convinced about the merit of that in the context of "blockbuster" though. We all know what a blockbuster is, but it's not really something an encyclopedia would have a lot to say about, and a lot of this article looks like lists of examples from different eras. It's not if huge encyclopedic importance. Overall, given the imbalance of page views, considering the retailer and the TV series, I think readers are best served by the status quo of a disambiguation page. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Intellectual blockbuster
Late April 8th, I this to the article:

A subgenre of the blockbuster is the "intellectual blockbuster", that may feature plots that are puzzles, and nonlinear narratives. While the term is not exclusively applied to films,   it often is, with filmmaker Majid Majidi considering Christopher Nolan the phenomenon's creator. David Fear, writing for Rolling Stone, considers Nolan's Inception an example. Novelist D. Harlan Wilson applied the term to Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. Other examples are Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity, and Logan.

Early April 9th, my edit was by editor Betty Logan, with edit summary: "A mix of non-reliable sources and synthesis. Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." On their Talk page, I asked if none of my material was usable, to which they replied: "You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror." At first, I was thinking, "synthesis", fair enough, I have no sources at hand that, for example, give a listing of subgenres of the blockbuster, let alone that include "intellectual blockbuster"; maybe one day there are and we can always (re)add the subgenre to the article later. But I believe it is useful for this Talk page - and/or, perhaps eventually, its archive - to include the term "intellectual blockbuster", the above material that was added and removed, and my final thoughts. First, I object to the phrase "non-reliable sources" that is part of the reason given for the reversion. Of the 9 sources, two are official websites of persons whose occupations may give their views on (intellectual) blockbusters some credibility, namely Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi, and novelist D. Harlan Wilson; both of whom are also notable enough to have their own articles on our wiki. The other seven sources are the Los Angeles Review of Books, the Wheeler Centre, Chicago, Inverse, Rolling Stone, Chicago Reader, and Slashfilm. To dismiss all 9 sources as "non-reliable", even when taking context into account, seems too harsh. When I see edits such as my contribution, it is clear to me that such edits' authors put effort into providing proper sources. I believe a more tactful edit summary would be preferable when reverting such edits. Then the remark, "Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." When I read "creator of the “intellectual blockbuster” phenomenon" in the source, I personally did not read this as a claim by Majidi that intellectual blockbusters started with Nolan. Key being the word "phenomenon", per its common usage. But more importantly, my material states that Majidi considering Nolan the phenomenon's creator, which is a simple statement of fact. Editor Betty Logan essentially justifies their reversion by stating: "I, editor extraordinaire, disagree with Majidi." The editor also did not back up with a reliable source their claim that Stanley Kubrick has created an intellectual blockbuster, nor that Lawrence of Arabia is one. All while, apparently, acknowledging that the "intellectual blockbuster" does exist, through "e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia". Finally, I think the sources make it sufficiently clear that "intellectual blockbuster", these words together, have a specific meaning that goes beyond merely being blockbusters with intellectual elements. They do this through the use of (mostly double) quotes, e.g. Slashfilm&#39;s "Logan was also a perfect example of an "intellectual blockbuster."" and Rolling Stone's "Given post-Batman carte blanche, he [Nolan] proved that “intellectual blockbuster” was not a contradiction in terms." By the way, here you can see that Rolling Stone too acknowledges the phenomenon that I mentioned above. Nolan; not Kubrick or Lean or whoever. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment The content appears to have been restored but I maintain my objection that no reliable sourcing has been presented that establishes the existence of an "intellectual blockbuster" genre. The content appears to be mostly WP:SYNTHESIS, cobbled together from various sources referring to films as "intellectual" blockbusters e.g. "In this erudite and theoretically sophisticated analysis, D. Harlan Wilson contextualizes Minority Report in the history of science fiction and communications technology, with a sensitivity to cultural and political dimensions that draws on established as well as up-to-date scholarship to demonstrate a convincing case for the complexity of what he calls Spielberg’s 'intellectual blockbuster." No sourcing is presented that outlines what binds these films into genre, in manner similar to the "summer blockbuster" or "elevated horror". It's rather telling that each of the sources discusses only individual films, rather than sets of films e.g. summer blockbusters, elevated horror. Christopher Nolan follows in a great tradition of intelligent blockbuster film-making e.g. Kubrick (especially the 1960s when he produced several huge box-office hits), and David Lean in the same decade. It's nothing new, and no sourcing has been presented to make the case that this kind of film-making has cohered into a genre with identifiable tropes and characteristics. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources demonstrate that "intellectual blockbuster" is an extant collocation. They do not demonstrate that it is a subgenre; adding an adjective to an existing genre does not ipso facto turn it into a subgenre—"bad horror" is obviously not a subgenre, even though many a film has been described thusly. Do any sources explicitly label "intellectual blockbuster" as a subgenre? TompaDompa (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar to Betty Logan and TompaDompa, I don't find that the sources provided and the ways in which they use frame this as a subgenre. TompaDompa characterizes it QUITE succinctly by observing that it's a collocation. It's a memetic phrase to communicate a specific discursive idea about blockbuster films that are "not stereotypically braindead" (pardon the phrasing). I disagree that the sources prove that "a specific meaning that goes beyond merely being blockbusters with intellectual elements" as the usage really feels just that: it's a recognizable phraseology to invoke a specific discussion about "more high-brow" blockbusters. It's synthesis to posit that these are defining a subgenre. They're certainly discussing a trend, and perhaps one day it'll cohere into a sub-genre, but the sources currently provided do not establish this. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  00:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording from "subgenre" to "collocation". Espngeek (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "intellectual blockbuster" is a collocation that feature plots that are puzzles and/or nonlinear narratives. is nonsensical and demonstrates the extent to which this is based on WP:Improper editorial synthesis. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your feedback and input. Many valid points. I'm happy some on-topic material made it into the article, through the justifiable use of "collocation". --62.166.252.25 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The use of "collocation" in the article text is, contrary to your assertion, not justifiable. The sentence doesn't even make sense. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)