Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)

RfC: Should Dark Phoenix (film) contain a statement regarding its box office failure?
Question: Should Dark Phoenix contain a statement regarding its box office failure in lede and box office section?

Option 1: "The film is widely described as a box office bomb including by USAToday, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and Variety."

Option 2: insert into existing sentence: "was a box office failure". Note phrase includes WP link to box office bomb.

Option 3: Do not include a box office failure or box office bomb/flop statement.

At least nine WP:RSP sources refer to Dark Phoenix as a box office bomb/flop. The film is one of the top 100 money losers of all time.

ToeFungii (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

''Note: A user in error believed this issue to have already been through a rfc when it has not. It has only been through talk page discussion without a consensus.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources below are considered reliable by consensus at WP:RSP and WikiProject Film Resources.


 * 1) Deadline Hollywood- "Bombs at the box office"
 * 2) USAToday - "Biggest Movie Bombs"
 * 3) Hollywood Reporter - "Box office bomb"
 * 4) Variety - "Bombs" "flop spectacularly" "
 * 5) Independent - "box office flop"
 * 6) Indiewire 3-2020 - "Bomb"
 * 7) IGN - "biggest fox office flops"
 * 8) Fox News - "Box office flop"
 * 9) Indiewire 8-2019 - "Box office bomb"
 * 10) Business Insider has not been deemed reliable or unreliable by consensus- "Major flop"

Discussion: (please see above rfc for previous talk page discussion without consensus)


 * since there seems to have already been an RfC about this above Looks like it was a discussion, not an RfC., I'm going to remove this tag. RfCs are generally only for discussions that require widespread input due to significance or prior disagreement, whereas this seems like an issue that you all will be able to work out just through normal discussion here. To offer a bit of advice, if we went with option 1, it wouldn't be necessary to list the sources in the sentence; just put them as references. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Removed by and restored by &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;   talk 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: ToeFungii has restored the RfC tag. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

is wrong that there has been a rfc about this. there has only been talk page discussion that did not reach consensus.


 * Option 1 - The phrase is clearly and obviously widely attributed to the film by reliable sources. Even if considered a subjective opinion, WP:Neutral allows for inclusion of such statements based upon "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." In addition WP:Subjective states there are no "forbidden words or expressions" and that even disparaging words may be included if "those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source" which in this case is based on nine sources. If not option 1, then I'd select Option 2.ToeFungii (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, that's what this film was and that's was reliable sourced called it. I don't think there's even a need to mention it being called a box office bomb, we can just say that it was, with the sources as references. So, plain "was a box office bomb" for me. El Millo (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1. I was actually going to say Option 2 until I saw that the box office revenue is higher than the production budget. Unfortunately, to the layperson reader, this positive difference can make it seem like it's not a bomb. There are a lot of lead sections in film articles that put these numbers next to each other to incorrectly imply how well a film did. That comparison gets much fuzzier the closer the numbers are, as opposed to a $1 million film making $100 million or a $100 million film making $1 million. So I would support Option 1 and milk the sources for all they're worth to explain why it is a bomb. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The financial losses are well covered in the the third paragraph of the lead, but the scale of the loss is not clear, so perhaps this could be expanded on. A link to List of biggest box-office bombs might also provide a reader with added context. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 EXCEPT remove "including by USAToday, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and Variety." You can just cite those sources as references to the sentence, which can just be "The film is widely described as a box office bomb." Ikjbagl (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per discussions made above. Idealigic (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 except replace the plain text publication names with actual citations. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixing reference errors
When I went to the Dark Phoenix (film) page, I noticed that there are two list-defined reference errors. Please fix it. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

If New Mutants’ reception is labeled as “mixed” why Dark Phoenix’s reception labeled as negative?
I’ve noticed that the New Mutants page states that the film had “mix” reception and I assume that is based on what Metacritic saying it has mix or average reviews.

Metacritic also says the same thing about Dark Phoenix, with it having a 43 rating just like New Mutants. They also have similar average ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, Dark Phoenix having a 4.6/10 and New Mutants having a 4.8/10.

So I and some others have tried to label the film’s reception as “mixed” as well. But there are those who want to label the film’s reception as negative because of the RT meter is so low. This doesn’t make much sense to me. Because the RT meter is not an average rating but the percentage of reviewers that liked a work.

A movie can have mostly “okay” reviews and get a high RT percentage such as the Bird of Prey film, which has a 6.8/10 average rating with 71%. Joker has a lower RT parentage than Birds of Prey with a 68%, but has a higher average rating with a 7.3/10.

As I said, the film’s average rating is similar to New Mutant’s on both Rotten Tomatoes, as well as Metacritic. So I think either New Mutants’ reception should be labeled as “negative” like Dark Phoenix. That or Dark Phoenix’s reception be labeled as “mixed”.

Also, I honestly think Metacritic has a bit more weight than Rotten Tomatoes since all the reviews it posts come from people who are actual critics. By that, I mean people who engage in criticisms (aka the judgement/analysis of the merits and faults of a work). While Rotten Tomatoes now collects “reviews” from bloggers, Youtubers, and casual websites that don’t necessarily engage in actual criticism. They often just tell you whether they like a work or not instead of making any kind of analysis. 98.110.50.133 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it really confirmed that Deadpool 3 will be before the events of Logan?
Ryan Reynolds didn't really mention that, he just mentioned that Logan is its own separate thing. 163.116.199.121 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)