Talk:Box-office bomb/Archive 1

October 2006
Isn't there another article on this subject? If I remember correctly, it wasn't a stub. Rintrah 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was another one, but wildly unsourced in the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.171.30 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So it was deleted? Rintrah 01:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'Domestic' to mean US, even in Britain
I'd need conformation of this, but when I worked in the film industry in the UK, it was common to refer to US takings as 'Domestic' and everything else as 'International' (at least for US-made films). 86.168.200.250 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Domestic is usually USofA and Canada. UK would be considered International for Holllltwood context. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "box office bomb"
Alister, we get that you're just hell bent on "winning" the List of box office bombs AfD (which, with the tally 4-6 against deletion five days in, is pretty unlikely), but this is verging into WP:SNOW and dealing in bad faith and definitely a WP:POINT violation. Are you seriously trying to tell us that because you have yet to see a link (excuse me, a link you can't find some excuse to ignore) explicitly stating "The definition of a box office bomb is ..." you refuse to accept that the term exists? Let me put it baldly: do you deny that the term is in widespread vogue, and that the accepted definition in the business is a money-losing film?

Let's take it down the line. The Washington Post article's headline claims that F9/11 isn't a box office bomb ... and the only information thereafter describes the film's unexpected financial success. The Ask Yahoo link describes nothing but ... films that lost money at the box office. The Wiktionary link gives the accepted definition ... but, well, right, that would discredit the argument, huh? As far as the Cineaste and LA Daily News links go, your unwillingness to read any source you can't do from your computer is not our problem; the references are there and correct. In all cases, the purpose of the sources is to establish that the term is widespread throughout the media industry. Which it demonstrably is. Ravenswing 09:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute whether the term is in widespread use. What I am asking for is a something that defines what a "box office bomb" is.  Is it just simply when a film takes in less many than it cost to make, or when it doesn't even take in half what it cost to make?  Less than ten percent?  Surely if a film makes almost what it cost to make then it can't be called "a bomb", so where does the line fall?  50%?  25%?  10%?  On the list's AFD page, User:Mangojuice says less than 30%.  Can that be sourced?


 * Again, I'm asking you to define "box office bomb" not prove the term in is widespread use. AlistairMcMillan 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I decline to play that game; it's a thinly disguised straw man argument. It is no more likely that a hard and fast ruling exists than there is a hard and fast definition of what constitutes "black" in terms of race; nevertheless, Wikipedia maintains numerous racially based lists, without AfDs being filed by editors demanding that such lists follow strict definitions and that such terms be rigidly defined.  This article does a good job in discussing and sourcing the concept, and the list operates off of films where the domestic gross failed to meet the reported budgets.  You are seeking rigidity which doesn't exist ... and which isn't required.  Ravenswing 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically the list article is a list of films that Wikipedia defines as box office bombs. And you don't see a problem with that?  AlistairMcMillan 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a list of films that follow a rigid criteria of failing to recoup their budgets, tagged with an appellation in widespread use and with a generally accepted meaning, and no, I have no problem with that. Ravenswing 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion My opinion in this case is simple: --User:Krator (t c) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A source for the definition is not needed, because it is clear from both Wiktionary and the use in over 40.000 google hits. ( - search minus Dramarama because they have an album of the same name.)
 * This does not mean one can clearly define a film as a box office bomb or not - flop is a much better term. A percentage of the total budget is an awkward definition - one could argue for an absolute number, or a percentage of budget divided by number of minutes in the film, or the number of people visiting the film, etc.
 * Conclusion: box office bomb is a subjective term that cannot be applied to any film by straightforward logical deducations - or: one will need to provide a source stating the picture in question is a box office bomb to list it on Wikipedia.
 * This is clearly connected to the AfD going on - please discuss on the appropiate page. (i.e.: the AfD page)


 * If you have ever heard of the movie the Golden Compass, it is going to be a box-office bomb in my opinion. It's religious views are screwed, and many people have been offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.144.217 (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleopatra
We need a less pixelated photo of the Cleopatra poster. 218.186.9.1 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waterworld.jpg
Image:Waterworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slither
A PR agent from Gold Circle films has an objection to Slither being on this page, and keeps reverting this page.

Bottomline--> Slither tanked hardcore. This flop demolished Gold Circle Picture. They haven't made a picture since. The sources back it up.


 * '"Another case of a distributor claiming to simply be a gun for hire, Slither crawled to $3.9 million at 1,945 venues. A spokesman for Universal Pictures stressed that they released the horror comedy as
 * part of a deal with Gold Circle Films, which financed Slither as well as past movies White Noise and The Wedding Date."


 * "We were crushingly disappointed," said Paul Brooks, president of the film's producer, Gold Circle Films.


 * In fact, "Slither," which according to sources had a sticker price of $29.5 million, might have killed off the horror-comedy genre for the near future.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyArtyParty (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't call us, we'll call you
The article has a section on "Examples of flops not being career-ending"; Quentin Tarantino could probably fill out most of this section. I think the article would benefit from a section on flops that were so extreme as to end the career of a director, producer, or actor, or at least smash their career into tiny fragments. The problem would be sourcing this stuff carefully. The most extreme and uncontroversial example I can think of is the big-budget 1981 film The Legend of the Lone Ranger, which starred Klinton Spilsbury in his one and only screen appearance. Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate is another example, although he continued to work in Hollywood, and the film is mentioned in the article once already. Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze ended the career of George Pal. Perhaps there could also be a section on flops that ended a franchise, e.g. Doc Savage again, or the 1998 Godzilla. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Godzilla (1998) didn't end Godzilla at all. In America, Godzilla was ended by Godzilla 1985 (1985), which bombed/flopped/crashed/failed in the theater. Godzilla continued in Japan 'til 2004's Godzilla: Final Wars. Also, the Godzilla movie after Sony's Godzilla disavowed the "godzilla" in the film as a monster Americans misidentified for Godzilla. In Final Wars, Godzilla kills "tunahead", as he's called. In fact, he kills "tunahead" in matter of ten seconds. The reason, from what I've read, is that Final Wars was very expensive to produce, and most of the crew was Red Chinese, so Toho just didn't have the capital to continue, as Godzilla films weren't doing too great for a few years overall, in Japan. Breaking even, but nothing spectacular. You want sources, find 'em. Apple8800 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cleopatra sheet.jpg
The image Image:Cleopatra sheet.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"lack of promotion" section very poor
The "lack of promotion" section
 * reads like a list
 * has no figures with the list items (actual dollar amounts)
 * ... and thus has no illustrating examples
 * the list is also completely unsourced

Unless these items are addressed, I think that entire section should be reduced to a single line.

What do others think?

brain (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Even if you don't list dollar amounts, the fact remains that some "high profile" films (e.g. The Hunger Games) are endlessly and ridiculously hyped, while others (e.g. Musical Chairs) are virtually ignored. AlbertSM (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Causes of a movie's failure section
It doesn't show a very well known cause on some good movies going bad... financially: the "film critics".

It is a well known fact that many film critics get paid to do good reviews even when a film is at its best, a pile of trash, even praising the work of the art department (CGI, special FX, etc), but avoiding to do a review on the actors performance or the film's plot.

Sadly, The "film critics" section will never be in the article, because of the lack of reliable sources, as the critic's business is a shady exchange of money.

The point being, why some good movies get a bad review, even when scholars gave good qualifications to the film's general structure? and when someone do some real research, finds that the reviews were bad, with no good reason, a very good example: Avatar, which received a ton of good reviews(based mostly on the FX department), but dismissed the reviews that showed the flaws in the plot, the acting and other criticism towards the film(possible plagiarism or even better: MULTIPLE PLAGIARISM).

I would like to see the film critics section, if someone found some sources to avoid "speed deletion" because the lack of sources.--201.247.28.7 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This section of the discussion is based on highly offensive, potentially slanderous, and unprovable assumptions. AlbertSM (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I'd like to make my intention to completely rewrite this article known. As is today it's completely ridiculous. It doesn't cite a single source inn the (inherently subjective) definition section and cites are rare throughout. For what it's worth, box office bombs are generally not simply films that fail to regain their budgets; they must be notable failures. I'd love to see a discussion start here, but failing that I'm going to kick off a project here today or tomorrow. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Causes of a movie's failure
Isn't one of the causes of a movie's failure often that it's simply a bad movie? Of course that isn't a neutral POV, but the list should at least mention poor critical reception. 24.5.42.20 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Swedish IW
The Swedish interwiki link has nothing to do wtih this article, it is a redirect about golf terms, can someone fix the problem if it appears again? Egon Eagle (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

First Sentence
Would someone mind clarifying the first line for me? The part where it goes "sometimes preceding hype regarding its cost, production, or marketing efforts."Is this talking about projected box office bombs, where hype is indicating the movie isn't out yet? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.66.178 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How to parse description of financial failure?
Article as of 2014-09-03: "To earn this dubious distinction, the film must also fail to earn more than the reported cost of its production, distribution, and marketing by a wide margin." How is "fail to earn more than ... by a wide margin" to be parsed? Does it mean "fail, by a wide margin, to earn more than" (with "by a wide margin" modifying "fail" rather than "more"/"more than"), such that films that earn only slightly less than they cost to make (and all films more successful than those fitting that description) are excluded, or does it mean "fail to earn more, by a wide margin, than" (with "by a wide margin" modifying "more" rather than "fail"), such that films that earn only slightly more than they cost to make (and all films less successful than those fitting that description) are included? Neither interpretation is clearly better (or at least neither is Pareto-better): The former would make more sense from a logical/linguistic perspective in that it better aligns with the intuition that there exists a practically effective distinction between the designation "[mere] financial failure" and the (presumably stronger and more restrictive) designation "bomb," but the latter might make more sense from a business perspective in that to be successful from the studio's perspective a film needs to "pull more than its own weight" in order to help cover fixed costs (overhead, pay for studio executives, etc.) and costs associated with films whose production is never completed (e.g., payments for option rights on scripts from which films are never produced). 108.39.32.14 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Batman & Robin a box office flop
Is Batman & Robin has a flop or not a box office flop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:472:69A8:D4E4:BDBE:5D50 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Outside Influences"
Disagree with the FIFA film being sited as outside influences, causing the failure of the film.

Firstly, A film about Football in America is a hard sell at the best of times let alone when it's a documentary drama, on top of which I would like to know how much advertising, how big an open this film had, if it was only at one or two cinemas, it was poor marketing, not 'Outside Influences'

Id wannant a guess that that was the director of the film, putting it in, trying to salvage some pride.

109.151.168.152 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Cleopatra? And the lede...
In the Studios pushed into financial trouble section, why is there no mention of Cleopatra? That movie very nearly wrecked 20th Century Fox, as it sucked up so much of their money, Fox went months and months with nothing else in production (except for The Longest Day, whose eventual release saved Fox from extinction.) It got so bad that they stop paying for landscaping, and nothing says you're in deep kimchi like having weeds growing in the parking lot.

The lede should also be rewritten. A bomb is not the same thing as a flop. A movie that simply doesn't perform as expected is flop, but one that fails spectacularly is a bomb. The "hype" clause is missing a word or two so its meaning isn't clear. The second sentence, "Generally, any film for which the production and marketing costs exceed the combined revenue recovered after release is considered to have 'bombed'," is just wrong, as any means that every film that loses money is a bomb, which is clearly wrong. The second paragraph (presumably written by a different person(s)) then goes on to contradict the first paragraph. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cleopatra nearly bankrupted Fox because it took so long to make. Also, contrary to popular belief it didn't actually bomb, and was actually the highest-grossing film of the year only, just falling short of breaking even. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Article sources
spent a lot of time sourcing the article. First of all I would like to thank Kjh007 for their effort, and also apologise for having to revert most of their edits. Please note that Fan wikis (usually denoted as "wikia") and IMDB are not reliable sources because they are WP:USERGENERATED. It may be worth taking a look at List of box office bombs which also lists many of the same films and uses reliable sourcing. It may be possible to transfer the sources over in some cases. Betty Logan (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Currency
has recently added pound sterling conversions to the article. While I appreciate this is a good faith edit, it is completely unnecessary. Per MOS:CURRENCY we are free to use dollars, euros or pounds for articles, but we don't need to provide conversions to all three for every figure. This article is predominantly about American movies losing big dollars, so US$ is the obvious choice here. It also suffices i.e. we are not required to convert all the amounts to pounds or euros. There is literally one British film in here with the data supplied in pounds, so supplying a dollar conversion is helpful in this particular case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence
What was meant by the sentence "Beginning in the 1980s, cinemas started to release films that suffered a poor opening weekend?" I'm assuming this was meant to mean poorly performing films were being pulled from theaters, though if that's the case, the word 'release' is extremely problematic because this typically means to launch a film in this context. Also, I couldn't find anything in the citation to support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinaryPill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence was altered in November: . I have reverted back to the original version. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Disney Animation?
I was puzzled by this inclusion:

Some financial losses have changed a company's agenda, such as Walt Disney Animation Studios' decision in the early 2000s to make only computer-animated features, which stemmed from several underperforming traditionally animated releases.[citation needed]

Granted, Disney has moved largely to computer-animated films, but this statement (specifically "decision in the early 2000s to make only computer-animated features") is untrue since The Princess and the Frog (a traditionally animated film) came out in 2009 and was a box office success, nowhere close to a box office bomb. Rephrasing this so it's less absolute might be OK, but I note this isn't even cited, so there's no basis for even including this in here at all. This just sounds like someone inserting an OR type of comment with no source...OK removing it? (Or providing a source that backs this up, The Princess and the Frog exception notwithstanding?) Disney of course has a few notable (and verified/cited) bombs that certainly merit a mention, but this statement shouldn't be included. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)TF
 * It needs to come out of the article because it is completely unsubstantiated. Betty Logan (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I just removed it, as well as the sentence that preceded it that was similarly unsourced and acted as a sort of lead in to the Disney statement. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Tim

Causes of a film's failure section misses the most obvious one...
I mean, wouldn't the #1 cause of a movie bombing be that it's simply a bad movie? The only causes listed are "external causes" or "over-budget". But most failing movies fail because they're just - not good movies. Seems like a pretty blatant omission there. 75.112.52.7 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * because there's not clear definition of "bad movie". what is a "bad movie"? bad cinematography? bad storytelling? or bad CGI? there's no definition.213.230.76.43 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Rfc: Was Dark Phoenix a box office bomb
There is a rfc regarding whether Dark Phoenix should have language that includes that it was a box office bomb.

Comment on the rfc here: Was Dark Phoenix a box office bomb.

ToeFungii (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Clear definition of "bomb"
Many films that made back all -- or a bit more than all -- of their production budget are classed as "bombs" or "failures" -- it seems to me that the definition of either should be uniform across WP. If a film makes back all or most of its cost, is it a "failure"? is it a "bomb" -- these terms seem applied very inconsistently. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the definition not uniform across Wikipedia? A bomb is essentially a film that costs a lot of money and loses a lot of money. Sometimes the term is used euphemistically by the media to describe a film that underperforms or is slated by the critics, but this is a misuse of the term. Sometimes a film can be turned around financially (Cleopatra and Waterworld recouped their initial losses through secondary markets) but in some cases the term sticks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've seen multiple films that made back (slightly) more than 100% of their production budget tagged as "bombs" -- it would be better I think to have a clear definition. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A film can gross more than its production budget and still bomb. Theaters keep about half the box-office and there are also marketing costs on top of the budget. The two largest flops of all-time ("John Carter" and "The Lone Ranger") both grossed more than their production budgets. I am not saying that there are not cases where the terminology is misapplied but it's not an entirely straightforward issue. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Short description
What's going on with the short description here?


 * The short description should define the article subject. Our lead sentence should be the clue here - "a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run". "Film industry term" is no more useful a description than "culinary term" is for "sandwich".


 * We don't need to say in the shortdesc that this is a "term". We just give a simple, concise description - like a definition - of the article subject. See also WP:REFERSTO, which is essentially the same issue. Pretty much every Wikipedia article is a "term". Popcornfud (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty much every short description everywhere is a term as well. As noted (and even acknowledged in the lead sentence) some bob's become profitable after their theatrical run so it is a misnomer to use unprofitable in the short description. Using the singular term "film" is misleading as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah "unprofitable film" is a solution that is desperately in search of a problem. It is obviously wrong, inappropriate, and overall nonsensical wording to this subject as everyone else has said here for several reasons, and is just yet another application of cherry-picked pedantry. WP:REFERSTO has no direct correlation with short descriptions, the verbatim text of the lead section has no direct correlation with short descriptions, nor do they have any need to. In this case, the lead section implies "is a term". An inordinate percentage of Wikipedia articles are most definitely not terms, and there is no comparison at all to the much more specific "sandwich", which is a category and not a term. The subject obviously simply is a term, so "film industry term" is literally what it is, and is the simple, concise description of the article subject. — Smuckola(talk) 02:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused about what the term "term" means: a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept. "Wikipedia" is a term. "Film" is a term. "Term" is a term. "Sandwich" absolutely is a term (and is no less a category than "box-office bomb" - a box-office bomb being a category of film - but that's neither here nor there). The point I'm making is that defining any term as a term isn't a useful explanation of what the term is or what it means - for this article or for sandwich - and so doesn't make for a useful shortdesc. Popcornfud (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with the point you're making, Popcornfud, but the short description serves a very basic purpose. It will appear as a subtitle in search results, and the idea is to separate the result from others that have similar terms in their title. You only need a basic description to accomplish that goal. Any of the proposed solutions work in that regard, in my opinion. Probably not worth the effort to find the best one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 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: '''Withdrawn. Not moved.''' Accesscrawl (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Box-office bomb → Box-office failure – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Box-office failure" has almost 2 times more results than "Box-office bomb" on Google news. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (was originally Neutral). At first I was going to instinctively oppose because I have always been under the impression that "box-office bomb" is the more common term. Then I just checked Ngram Viewer and it turns out box-office failure is the more common phrase in published sources.  So I learned something today on Wikipedia!  But I still personally prefer "box-office bomb" because it seems to be more common in the entertainment press. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just amended my position above to oppose. I just reviewed the Google Scholar results and I agree with the editors below that this appears to be an English dialect issue.  Since the major film studios overwhelmingly dominate the global film industry and uniformly use American English, we should go with the most common name in American English, "box office bomb". --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable American sources more commonly use the term "box office failure". There is no dialect issue. See my comment below for sources. Segaton (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose – "Box office bomb" is the common name, not "box office failure". Looking at Google News, most of the sources that use "box office failure" appear to be unreliable, whereas "box office bomb" is used by a large number of high-quality reliable sources. Google Scholar also has more results for "box office bomb" than "box office failure", and I personally have seen "bomb" used more widely.
 * One could also argue that is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Almost all of the sources (and Wikipedia articles) that use "failure" over "bomb" are in reference to Bollywood productions, while "bomb" is generally used for Hollywood productions. In that case, there is no reason to switch from the existing American English style to Indian English, per MOS:RETAIN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's 100% nonsense. Box office failure has like 10 times more result on Google Scholars than "Box office bomb" on Google Scholars. You need to stop WP:GAMING the system by misrepresenting the results.
 * Those sticking to American English like CNN, Forbes, NY Times,, Washington Post,, etc. are all using "box office failure" instead of "box office bomb". Segaton (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose A Google search on "box office failures" brings up a load of hits for "box office bombs" and "box office flops". I suspect the reason Ngram is bringing up more hits for "box office failures" is because they are not synonymous terms, and more films "fail" than "bomb", given the common understanding of the terms. However, the Google results are evident in that when people write articles on this subject, it is generally in the capacity of films "flopping" or "bombing". Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The above arguments read a lot like "I will hear only those who agree with me" together with a bunch of misrepresentation of results and coverage and misleading attempts of turning this into a "dialect" issue, all of which I have already debunked above.
 * Google Scholars show that "box office failure" is like 10 times more common than "box office bomb".
 * Google News shows that "box office failure" is like nearly 2 times more common term than "box office bomb".
 * Google Books shows that "box office bomb" is a negligible term while "box office failure" is heavily used by high quality scholarly sources
 * Also on the sources from 19th century and 20th century:
 * Thus I see no sense in sticking to a negligible term and ignoring the more scholarly and commonly known term. Segaton (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also on the sources from 19th century and 20th century:
 * Thus I see no sense in sticking to a negligible term and ignoring the more scholarly and commonly known term. Segaton (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also on the sources from 19th century and 20th century:
 * Thus I see no sense in sticking to a negligible term and ignoring the more scholarly and commonly known term. Segaton (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also on the sources from 19th century and 20th century:
 * Thus I see no sense in sticking to a negligible term and ignoring the more scholarly and commonly known term. Segaton (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thus I see no sense in sticking to a negligible term and ignoring the more scholarly and commonly known term. Segaton (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through your sources the term "box-office failure" is being used purely in a descriptive capacity, to describe the financial performance of some film or other. When box-office failures are written about collectively as a topic they are generally described as "bombs" or flops". Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The two terms are not synonymous. While all BOB's are also failures not all BOF's are bombs. Hollywood's long history of creative accounting can mean a film that may have failed at the box office was actually  a success for the studio that made it. A bomb often has repercussions that go beyond simply not covering its initial costs. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I believe the proposal is faulty amd commonname actually applies to "bomb", not "failure". Also oppose per the many good reasons given in the above oppose !votes. - w o lf  07:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a large difference in the degree of failure between a simple failure, and a bomb. As said above, while all bombs are failures, not all failures are bombs. A bomb is a significant failure with significant consequences - from losing large amounts of money, to destroying studios and ending careers. A simple failure, on the other hand, doesn't have lasting consequence, and can even turn into a (qualified) success later if it finds legs on streaming and home video.H. Carver (talk) 15:15, 22 August 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.

Discussion
I have struck my support because there appears to be a number of technical issues not only with the proposal and the comments above but also with the page itself.

While I agree that "Box-office flop" is another contender, because it appears to be more WP:COMMONNAME than "box-office bomb", I would not only agree that "Box office failure" is used in a descriptive manner, but it also appears that "box office bomb" has replaced "box office failure" in a number of outlets, to provide the same meaning. To be exact, "box office bomb" means "A film that performs very poorly in ticket sales, earning less than the cost of production."

But I would disagree with you that "bombs" or "flops" are synonymous. Buzzfeed says "Well, a bomb is technically worse than a flop for starters, but they're kinda used interchangeably."

"Box-office disaster" and "box-office bomb" seems to be more of synonymous, but "bomb" is more common.

Similarly, "Box-office failure" and "box-office flop" seems to be more of synonymous because "flop" can mean "complete failure".

I note there is no page for Box-office success, maybe because the term speaks for itself and would not need a page, just like "box-office failure".

This confirms the point raised by, that "box-office bomb" and "box-office failure" are not synonymous.

For dealing with these issues, we need to:


 * 1) remove "box office flop" and "box office failure" from the lead.
 * 2) create particular sections for "box office flop" where we can highlight the term "box office failure".
 * 3) fix the redirects to Box office flop and Box-office failure to cover the sections after completing the above step.

Do you think that sounds better? Segaton (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually we do have an article for "Box-office success", it's called: "List of highest-grossing films". fyi - w o lf  23:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestions . As this is a Sunday (my time anyway) you might wait a couple days to see what responses and ideas other editors may have. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that there exists a related article, List of biggest box-office bombs, that has a more developed lede and so may be a useful reference for improving this article.H. Carver (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal and have withdrawn the RM in light of the comments above. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This should be titled "box office bomb"
Hyphenation of phrases like that is appropriate only when a verb is involved. In this case, "box" and "office" are both nouns but are being used together as a noun phrase to modify bomb. Therefore, no hyphenation is needed. Which likely explains why "box office bomb" has been the prevalent usage for over a decade (according to Google Ngram Viewer). Any objections before I fix this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion on this but when the List of biggest box-office bombs article was renamed there was a debate about including a hyphen which resulted in including it. You can see the full discussion at Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs/Archive_3. If they are grammatically incorrect then both titles should be fixed, but how sure are you this isn't just an American/British English issue? Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)