Talk:Happily N'Ever After

Proposed merger
Just thinking, do you think it would be a good idea to add the new poster to the page? Just thinking 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think merging those two articles would be a very good idea. :) In accordance with Naming conventions (films), I propose keeping the "Happily N'Ever After" title because there is nothing else which bears that name (as far as I know), so the "(film)" at the end is unneeded. Esn 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Witches Abroad
Should Pratchett's book with a very similar premise be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.92.7 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has some bias
Article is more than a little biased. The article seems to revel in the weak box office earnings of the film, even though it's sum of box office & DVD sales made it slightly gross profitable Lexein (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there were some tonal problems with describing it a "failure" and a "letdown". These were added here and here. I've removed the phrasing since 1) they constitute improper tone, (we don't like hyperbolic "flop" and "failure" language) and 2) nobody's bothered to attribute the opinions to anybody. Normally we only consider box office revenue against production budget as the metric for a theatrical film's financial success. There are too many possible revenue streams, like broadcast rights sales, merchandising, etc. and that's all simply beyond the scope our interest. I mean, even just to evaluate DVD sales, we don't know how much was invested in the production of those DVDs. For all we know, the $16M made there was a loss. Anyhow, I hope the other issues have been resolved, if not, please feel free to make the changes yourself. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This sort of analysis needs to be properly sourced to avoid original research.  A lot of Wikipedia editors seem to think they can simply compare the budget to the gross and determine this themselves.  We have an entire article dedicated to why this is not possible: Hollywood accounting.  Besides that, the gross is split between distributors and studios.  It is meaningless to say that a film grossed more than its budget; this may still be a net loss for the studio.  It is also possible for a studio to make money on a film from other sources, such as merchandising and home video.  It's difficult to keep this kind of editorializing out of Wikipedia articles, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 12 NovMember19 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for replying. Helpful. "Hollywood accounting"- shoulda known. Seems like Box Office Mojo seems unafraid of stating gross income from many sources, but inconsistently.Lexein (talk)Lexein