Talk:Lightyear (film)

83 million views
I believe it should be mentioned that at this time, the Lightyear trailer uploaded by the Pixar Youtube channel has 8.3 million views. The 83 million views that is sourced in the Hollywood Deadline article is erroneous. 100.2.137.190 (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ You are correct. I have fixed this. DemianStratford (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 83 million views cited in the article are a combination of all major sites where the teaser was released, not just Pixar's YouTube channel. This change is erroneous. Madyoshi01 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lightyear (film)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Soundtrack": From Brave (2012 film):  From Turning Red:  From The Lion King (2019 film):  From List of Pixar films:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Homosexual Content Controversy?
Should the controversy over Pixar's decision to include homosexual content in children's entertainment be covered? 人族 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The content is already in the article and it is most certainly not a controversy--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Including non-PG content in a kids film absolutely is controversial, which is probably why it was noted in several articles around the world. Not sure how I missed the paragraph. Missed the tree for the forest? 人族 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not non-PG content. The reason it has articles is because it's positive representation, and not controversy. In fact, it was in the midst of Chapek being under fire for donating to a Florida anti-LGBTQ legislation. CreecregofLife (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Er yes it absolutely is non-PG. Yes some articles support such content, others are aghast at the controversial inclusion. It simply depends on which side of the news spectrum you're reading. As for Florida's "anti-LGBTQ" legislation, you mean the Don't Groom Kids\anti-grooming bill as it's referred to elsewhere? Think this is getting off track to be honest. 人族 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be a controversy solely for plot reasons alone, if this is intended as a kids movie set in 1995, there is no way there would be a homosexual kiss. Pretty sure homosexuality was still illegal at that time. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:745D:6167:9DFC:CD8 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't our place to debate the merits of the controversy, with this or any other controversial topic, nor whether the PG rating is appropriate. There are plenty of news articles out there discussing this controversy, so clearly it exists; whether or not the kissing scene in the film is appropriate is irrelevant, aside from stating it's the reason for the controversy. The article must maintain a neutral point of view, but including well-sourced coverage of the controversy is appropriate. D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 16:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Kiss controversy should be included, the wikipedia article for Blank Check has a section about kiss controversy, and that controversy didn't arise until 2009, 15 years after the film had been released. Lightyear on the other hand the controversy is before it's been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:F19B:B0ED:3A25:A86D (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's already acknowledged CreecregofLife (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alicia Hawthorne Real Name
There is a Leak in Twitter and Uzo Aduba's Hawthorne Character First Name is not Alicia, But Alisha. Link here https://twitter.com/bttfrare/status/1511722927841943553?cxt=HHwWgoCpjcr_2_opAAAA --Happiness is Simple (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * At this point it is hard to say if I agree or disagree with that claim as different websites currently give different names (IMDB, Behind the Voice Actors. The current source 6 (i.e. Collider lists no names of these characters barring Buzz Lightyear. Using a source with the names of these characters would solve that part of the problem.
 * I don't know much about the film to say which one of these two names are correct, if any. Either way, we should consider that source 6 only gives out a list of actors without the names of these characters and should only be visible to us if a source is available and reliable. Having a look at the article, there are two months left till release day so something should be agreed to what Uzo Aduba's character name is. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also by checking Uzo Aduba, the role she voices is just "Hawthorne", it wouldn't make sense to drop all the first names in the voice cast since there is another Hawthorne listed there. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * During today's edits, one of them was the removal of this source which they name her "Alicia". Not sure how reliable that source is though. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Special Screening and Runtime
Lightyear will have it's Special Screening at Annecy Festival. The Runtime is revealed to be 1 Hour, 45 Minutes --Happiness is Simple (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If it’s revealed, do you have your source? As in, a URL we could use? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022
Requesting to link Lightyear (soundtrack) in the music section. 110.225.253.148 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lightyear (film)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM": From Turning Red:  From Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film):  From Onward (film): </li> <li>From Toy Story 4: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Post-credits scene
There are some people claiming that in a post-credits scene, Zurg survived the explosion. I have seen the movie, which has two post-credits scenes and neither of them have Zurg. Or he may have been hiding in the background of one of them. Red4Smash (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 3 post-credits scenes. 1 with the “laser shield” gag from Burnside. Another with the robot telling directions. And the 3rd is Zurg floating in space and his eyes light up.
 * Source - https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/does-lightyear-have-any-post-credits-scenes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.134.152 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me guess...does Zurg show up after the Pixar logo at the end? Red4Smash (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry you missed it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, WGTC is rightfully an unreliable source and wouldn’t normally be used CreecregofLife (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Plot
Can someone please change “raised a daughter” to “raised a son”? Alicia Hawthorne raised a son with her wife. That son then had a daughter (her granddaughter, Izzy). Thanks 125.168.134.152 (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Cast List - Zurg
TLDR, the plot doesn't belong in the cast section. Alright, User:InfiniteNexus, let's have the talk. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'spoiler' because that's not the primary concern here. The cast section isn't the place to discuss the plot of the film; and I would be very surprised if Brolin is billed anywhere as Zurg/Old Buzz. All of the other cast members have a very brief description that doesn't delve into the plot of the film; I don't see why Zurg should be different. I think James Earl Jones as Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back is a perfectly relevant example, as it doesn't list him as "Luke's father" in the cast section; that's a plot point that is discussed in the plot section. Another example, Avengers: Endgame doesn't list Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Old Steve Rogers, nor does it delve into him being aged up; that point is, however, discussed in the plot section. I suspect if you were to look at the billing for this film you wouldn't find Brolin listed as anything other than Zurg; that's all I've been able to find. While WP doesn't engage in spoiler warnings, it does seem like we should keep the plot in the relevant places. D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, he is credited as Zurg / Old Buzz in the end credits, so we should mirror that here. Per common practice on Wikipedia articles, cast listings go Real name / Alias, so he should be credited as Buzz Lightyear / Zurg. Buzz Lightyear is his real name, Zurg is his alias. It's really that simple. I don't know why The Empire Strikes Back doesn't mention Vader is Luke's father, I'm not a Star Wars fan and don't edit their articles, but Avengers: Endgame does not say Steve Rogers / Old Steve because it doesn't make sense. "Old Steve" is not an alias. The plot point that he aged up is also not crucial to be mentioned. To invoke WP:SPOILER again, it is not acceptable to remove plot details from anywhere on an article simply because it "spoils" the movie. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Framing device
The opening text of the film states: "In 1995, a boy named Andy got a Buzz Lightyear toy for his birthday. It was from his favorite movie. This is that movie." It does not say Andy watched the film in 1995, and Andy watching Lightyear is not depicted in Toy Story. jhsounds (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. This was not a framing device. I will remove it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversies Section
I created a controversies section due to the recent discussion of the movie. [This section] was reverted twice without explanation by and a third time with the explanation of WP:UNDUE. I am willing to compromise and concede on the lead, however I believe a section is very due as multiple news organizations have commented on this issue for weeks, and even the lead actor has commented multiple times on it. Some journals have attributed the disappointing box office numbers to this controversy as well, so only including one sentence at the end of the critical response section does not explain this situation well enough. Please comment your thoughts and support/opposition to inclusion. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of subheading per above Anon0098 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I only reverted you without explanation once, because you recreated a section you were told by someone else was undue weight. Without explanation for why, only what you were doing. Just because news organizations make comment doesn’t make them educated comment. What you’re doing is giving credibility and a platform to bigotry. “The gay is why the well dried up” is completely irresponsible. How many goddamn controversy sections do we have to give every time the evangelicals or the racists are upset?--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Both times were without explanation the first one was without an edit summary at all. The previous issue was undue weight in the lead which I again was willing to condede on. In regards to the controversy, it had an impact on the film, which is why it warrants attention. Whitewashing it because of the percieved biggotry doesn't do this situation justice and is WP:OR. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. Please stop lying. You don't have evidence that it impacted the film. Just because people jump to conclusions doesn't mean the conclusion is valid. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ??? I already gave my sources for this. "But Boxoffice Pro analyst Shawn Robbins told The Hollywood Reporter the "unfortunate pushback over the film's same-gender relationship" should be taken into consideration, even if it wasn't the primary reason for the disappointing numbers, as this combined with previous Pixar movies being released on Disney+ may "have instilled a 'We'll watch it before letting our kids see it' mentality in some communities, particularly those with strict religious views." is just one. Of course there is no hard data, there never will be. Which is why it's a controversy and I specifcally worded it in the article as "attributed as a potential factor" to be safe. To not comment on this at all is also irresponsible, seeing as how widespread and significant this situation is covered.
 * CreecregofLife - please see WP:CIVIL. Attacking other editors is rude and not tolerated here.
 * Anyway, a few points: this is actually the section in question. I don't think there's anything wrong with a "Controversies" section in theory - the film has been banned in 14 countries, after all, which, besides being notable in its own right, has undoubtedly had a significant effect on worldwide revenues. On the other hand, it's not clear that the "Controversies" section, as currently worded, adds much information beyond what's there already. The banning in various countries is already mentioned elsewhere, as is American conservatives' reaction, as is Chris Evans feeling sad about the whole thing. The only new information there is the political pressure - from inside and outside Disney - that led Disney to remove, then restore, the scene in question. That is certainly both interesting and notable, but it, too, could easily be added elsewhere to the article - maybe in a "Production" section. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Telling someone to stop lying when they lie directly to you about your own actions is not uncivil.
 * The banning in 14 countries isn’t a controversy either. It’s standard censorship. CreecregofLife (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to a Production section. I just think the information as currently displayed is inadequate to the current situation. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But there already is a production section. The information you're looking to add is already there CreecregofLife (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true - I hadn't noticed before that the bit about Disney removing, then re-inserting, the scene. So there really is no point to adding a new section - though I think the issue there is not WP:UNDUE, just redundant information. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CreeccregoofLife, while I am just as sick of snowflake-y comments from supposedly anti-PC conservatives about "dA gAyS iN kIdS fLiCkS sEx CoNtEnT AhHh" as much as the next guy, the complaints and bannings are significantly-covered enough by non-bigoted reliable sources to be covered about, like it or not. Having content about those reactions does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing them as legitimate or that were platforming bigotry, although I will agree that we should base what the content is on how the sources cover it per WP:DUEWEIGHT. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 22:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:CSECTION (Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".) and, like has been pointed out above, all the pertinent information is already in the article in various sections. - Brojam (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I think the information mentioned by is sufficient to justify the creation of a controversy section. I don't see how it would be a problem considering there are many film articles with a controversy section (for any reason) and this film's bombing and reaction do seem to warrant such a section. DemianStratford (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The film is not a bomb. Please stop bludgeoning CreecregofLife (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And even if this film ended up being a bomb that information would belong in the box office section, which already has information about its underperformance and reasons why. - Brojam (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much a box office bomb but that's besides the point. The film has been banned in many countries, sparked discussion about its content and many media outlets and publications have talked about the controversy and about the film so I do think it warrants a controversy section (many other film articles on Wikipedia have one so I don't see the issue). DemianStratford (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The film has been banned in many countries" again does not make it a controversy. Those countries have standard censorship proceedings. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're so desperate trying to hide the fact that the film was a flop (the low numbers confirm it) and pretending that we live in an utopic and perfect world where homosexual relationships have been fully accepted and seen as normal, to the point that you're trying to convince yourself that nobody has criticized the film about its LGBT content and that the controversy doesn't exists when there are thousands of articles out there talking about it, and worldwide.
 * Here in Latin America most people applauded the fact that the film flopped due to their forced agenda on a kids movie, and where disgusted when news sites were reporting that such lesbian kiss was present in the film. PSNFinozzi1696 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely cover the topic, but whether an entire section should be about the kissing should depend on the reliable source coverage per WP:DUEWEIGHT. I think individual components of it being discussed in different sections (such as the bannings and reasons for the low performance) are the best way to go about this as of now. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Box-office bomb?
A dispute over whether Lightyear can be called a "box-office bomb" has now led to this article being locked down, which seems like an overreaction, but we should probably resolve this so that editing can be restored. So, the issue seems to be this text, which uses the term "box office bomb", which CreecregofLife doesn't like because it's "exaggerative language", and it's too soon to know whether this is a bomb or not. Although CreecregofLife then re-added the text themselves, now without the references, so maybe there's no longer a dispute at all? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to re-add it. I don’t know how that happened CreecregofLife (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That explains it. But as to the actual dispute: Lightyear has already been referred to as a box office "bomb", "flop" or "disappointment" in a variety of sources, maybe most notably by Scott Mendelson of Forbes. How much more proof do you need? Or would you feel more comfortable with a term like "disappointment"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A few cherrypicked sources using embellished language doesn't make it a bomb. The term "underwhelming" in regards to the performance was already in use on the wiki article. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the term box-office bomb is quite accurate to define its box office performance and it's the term used both in the film industry and in film articles for films that fail, are unprofitable, or perform badly at the box office. "Disappointment" is vague. Disappointment for whom exactly? I had linked three sources (including the one by Forbes that you mention) which were unjustifiably removed by CreecregofLife. For all intents and purposes the film is a box office bomb DemianStratford (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you think something doesn't mean it is. By your definition, box office bomb is too broad a term and absorbs too many other qualifiers for an actual meaning. You are pushing a narrative agenda that violates WP:NPOV CreecregofLife (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't in any way violate WP:NPOV. "Box office bomb" is a term used quite used in the entertainment industry and on Wikipedia to define films that are not profitable. Some of Pixar's own films have been defined as box office bombs, as well as any other film that is not considered profitable. DemianStratford (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t have sources that say your definition matches. You cherry-picked to force your narrative into the lede when the body did not support it. I do not need consensus, you do. A box office bomb has to be highly unsuccessful in its theatrical run. You wrote it off as one after a week and a half out of six and a half when it’s grossed over 156 million. That is not highly unsuccessful. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not "cherry-picked" my sources. I cited three different publications (all of which you unjustifiably removed), one of which happens to be Forbes (a business publication) in which they call the film a bomb and how it's "bombing". Here's a list of films considered to be box office bombs (two of them are from Pixar; take a look):.
 * So it's not unheard of for a film on Wikipedia to be described as a box office bomb nor is it unheard of for Pixar to make unprofitable films. There is a) The reputable sources calling this specific film a bomb, and b) The precedent in Wikipedia (when it comes to calling films "box office bombs") and in Pixar (releasing films that considered box office bombs). I'm not sure what else do you want or why you resist the label. DemianStratford (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it still doesn't apply. Just because the source is reputable doesn't mean the term usage can't be questioned. You wrote the film off after 10 days. Nothing in the body called it a bomb. That's only the term you used. The film is not "highly unsuccessful". If Lightyear. It is clear you're not listening. CreecregofLife (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the third time I'm linking to the box office bomb article here. This is the definition (emphases are mine): "A box-office bomb, box-office flop, or box-office failure is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. Although any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed", the term is more frequently used for major studio releases that were highly anticipated, extensively marketed and expensive to produce that ultimately failed commercially. "
 * Lightyear (2022) perfectly fits in that definition. It's a big budget film ($200 million + marketing and other costs) from a popular franchise (Toy Story) and from a major studio (Pixar) that it's commercially failing (it's approaching its third week-end and it still hasn't recouped its production budget, let alone all final costs). That's whyForbes magazine among other publications have rightfully labelled it a box office bomb. So now we have a) It fits the definition of box office bomb, b) There are precedents of its usage (Wikipedia) and it's already happened (Pixar's third box office bomb), and c) Reputable sources have already called it a "bomb" and how it's "bombing." Those are sufficient reasons against simply your opinion. DemianStratford (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * When editing can resume for the article, I don't think we shouldn't point out the fact that some Conservative audiences might not have gone to see the film over the same-sex kiss scene. Pamela McClintock of The Hollywood Reporter said it can't be ignored, especially according to what Shawn Robbins of Boxoffice Pro wrote

And1987 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * But it’s already mentioned. Not only do we not need a controversies section, it is highly discouraged CreecregofLife (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CreecregofLife, The current version of the article only mentions McClintock’s belief that the underperformance was attributed to brand confusion in the marketing. The sentence about how some Conservatives might not have seen the film over the addition of the same-sex kiss scene is no longer next to that reference. And1987 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's one person's speculation. It wasn't an "addition" of a same sex kiss scene either. It wasn't even it's own scene. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CreecregofLife, it actually is more than one person because McClintock seems to agree with Shawn Robbins of Box Office Pro that it might’ve been a contributing factor. And1987 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it can't be a bomb if it was intentionally tanked by a specific demographic. You can't have it both ways "This abuse victim is a poison to the industry because they were abused" CreecregofLife (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You can objectively say it's a bomb by standard criteria - it lost millions. You can argue journalists are using kid gloves because it's a Disney project and would use stronger language for another company, and that may be true, but it's irrelevant. We mirror what sources say in proportion to both their amount and quality. The sources use more careful language - saying it has "underperformed" or "underwhelmed" and such. If sources outright call it a "box office bomb", then include it. I actually did a bunch of searches specifically to see if any articles called it a bomb but didn't find any. The only ones using very strong language are ones that are partisan or blogs, which can be outright ignored. The language of Hollywood reporter, LA Times, NY Times, etc is what we go with.

In another example for an article I edited, I only called Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" a box office bomb specifically only after I found two high quality sources saying as such. It's not just a matter of looking at the box office compared to its budget. If it was, that verges into original research territory. It's not our job to say what films did well or did not, and we're certainly not experts when it comes to the economics of film making. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, to be perfectly honest, I had used three sources that used the term "bomb" but they were reverted for no reason. Just from a single search I just did I found that the following publications referred to the film as a bomb:
 * The Gazette
 * Forbes
 * Looper
 * The Washington Examiner
 * Among others. So, yes, there are publications calling it a box office bomb. Forbes WP:FORBES, a reliable source (as per WP:RSP) in the field of business clearly refers to it as a bomb, so I don't see a reason why a euphemism should be used specifically for this film release. Other commercial failures by Pixar have already been considered box office bombs. DemianStratford (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you're using extreme language for minor underperformance after ten days. Using any source to agree with you is utterly reckless and reinforces the NPOV violations. The margin will be nowhere big enough to call it a bomb when all is said and done, especially compared to the top 100 on the box office bombs page CreecregofLife (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep repeating the "ten days" thing - it's now been more than 20 days. Whatever wording DemianStratford was using before hardly matters now. Actually, I'd advise you to give up pretty much all the arguments you've been using so far (like "it can't be a bomb if people are intentionally not going to see it!"), since they're irrelevant. The only argument that matters is the one brought up by Harizotoh9 - are enough reliable sources referring to it as a bomb? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes is a weird site with a whole blog section of self-published material and it's very confusing to try to tell which is the main print "forbes" and which is blog forbes. In fact, I think they use that ambiguity and reputation to get clicks. The "sites/scottmendelson/" in the url imply it might be one of the blogs. It's so confusing I simply ignore Forbes entirely. Looper is pretty bloggy and Examiner is an outright unreliable partisan source. In contrast, the highest quality sources use far more cautious language. As is everything it boils down to source quality and the overall consensus of sources. There are far, far, more high quality sources describing it as having "underformed" and only a handful of low quality sources saying it's bombed. Ergo we go with the high quality sources. We don't write wikipedia, the sources do. We can call it a bomb if they later start calling it as such. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but I'd like to note that Scott Mendelson is a staff writer of Forbes, not a WP:FORBESCON, so he is reliable. Looper and The Washington Examiner are both unreliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree with both and . I specifically agree with their approach regarding the consensus of the sources and I also appreciate their civility. After doing some sampling, the number of generally reliable sources saying it "underperformed" or "did below expectations" or "fails to launch" outnumbers the ones calling it a "bomb". I see this as being the ideal way going forward: We agree on a description ("underperformed", "underwhelmed", etc) but if after the theatrical run is over enough reputable sources later call it a "bomb" or a "box office bomb" (like Pixar's The Good Dinosaur or Onward were) we might be able to edit the description (just like Harizotoh9 proposed). It's what makes the most sense to me at the moment and I don't want stunt the development of this article any longer. Thoughts? DemianStratford (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine with me. Personally, I prefer the term "box-office disappointment", which this film clearly is, in part because it links to the "box-office bomb" article, so people there can read about the different meanings of these terms: that technically, a "bomb", like a "flop", "failure", "disappointment" etc. is just any film that loses money (as Lightyear is almost sure to), but that "bomb" is usually reserved for the substantial money-losers. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, count me in. I really like your idea of using "box-office disappointment". I think it's the best of both worlds. We get to use the adequate language and we let people know about the term like you said. Let's wait and see what the others have to say. DemianStratford (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As I commented below, whether sources use "bomb" is irrelevant. They are using synonyms, or euphemisms, for the same thing. The Wikipedia article linked is titled box-office bomb regardless of what text we use, so why use euphemisms? If you say we should use the precise wording that the sources use, well then Wikipedia articles would rarely if ever spell out the actual n-word when describing it, but that's not the case. We're here to explain facts, not go along with the euphemisms sources choose to use.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 03:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a very off-base comparison CreecregofLife (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As the editor to have initially added the "bomb" wording, I fully support its inclusion. While some sources are directly using the term "bomb", it actually doesn't matter whether sources refer to it as a "bomb" specifically or not, the wording is irrelevant. There are many sources that refer to it as a "disappointment" or "underperforming", which are essentially euphemisms for the standard term "bomb". To put it another way – think about when a notable figure gets in trouble for using the "n-word". Most—if not virtually all sources—refer to the word only by the euphemism "the n-word" in their articles, yet Wikipedia always writes out and links to the specific word in question. We don't worry about how sources word things, but only what they are ultimately saying. The Wikipedia article being linked is titled box-office bomb in all cases, regardless of what we choose as the inline text, so there's absolutely no valid reason not to spell out the name of the linked article in the text. Sources which refer to this film a "box office disappointment" or a "box office underperformer" are still calling it a box-office bomb.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 03:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. "Disappointment" or "under-performing" are absolutely not euphemisms for "bomb". If they wanted to call it a box office bomb they'd call it a box office bomb. They are choosing to use far less harsh terminology intentionally. There may very well be later articles that have a title such as "It's official - We can consider Lightyear a bomb". At which point we can use such terminology, but not before that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And it's not kid gloves either. The margins of difference for this film are going to end up close enough where calling it a bomb would be just wrong The writers already calling it a bomb their minds seem pretty made up, but the thing is, if what they're saying is wrong, then we're allowed to call it such and not use them. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support No one thinks this was a successful movie. Basically we're just arguing different degrees of failure. Box office "bomb" is a relative term, and there aren't any specific ways to measure that. If RSs are already using that verbiage, we should reflect that. Plus we dont even call it a bomb in the page's current form. "Projected to be" currently highlights RSs current conflicting statements. In the future we can change it to Bomb or Disappointment depending on RS consensus. Anon0098 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * “Box office bomb” is in fact a very specific term. There very much are ways to measure that. “No one thinks this is a successful movie” is not the argument. The entire reason the verbiage wasn’t on the page until Demian inserted it was because it’s not a box office bomb. It’s that simple. You are literally saying if one person exaggerates while most reliable sources are more reasonable, that we should go with the one person who exaggerates for clicks. You are also not allowing for any nuance or middle ground, and that is the real issue here. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CreecregofLife - you're not doing yourself any favors with these weak arguments. To the extent that "box office bomb" has a specific meaning, Lightyear seems to fit it to a tee - I'm no Hollywood expert, but from what I understand about movie financing, the current numbers suggest that it will lose more than $100 million, which would place it comfortably within the List of biggest box-office bombs article, alongside other Pixar films The Good Dinosaur and Onward. (Onward's numbers look especially similar to this film's, and it supposedly lost $131 million.) You're better off sticking with the "not enough reliable sources" argument. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How the bell does anyone get to call Onward a bomb when the pandemic started on its opening weekend, are you shitting me right now CreecregofLife (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like you view the term "box office bomb" as some kind of synonym for "bad movie", when in reality it's just a reflection of numbers. Maybe that's the real issue here? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where the hell did I imply such a thing, when I repeatedly pointed to box office margins. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, here, and also when you wrote above, it can't be a bomb if it was intentionally tanked by a specific demographic. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Onward lost a lot of money. The context is important but it still bombed regardless. Your perception of how movies should be classified is in opposition to RS and seems to be WP:OR at this point Anon0098 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To call it a bomb is a targeted, non-neutral narrative. A lot of films lost money in 2020 but Onward is the only one called a bomb. If reliable sources are being so irresponsible that should be taken into consideration. At this point you are only using them for confirmation bias CreecregofLife (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the core policies with WP:NPOV is WP:VERIFY, which is going by what RSs specifically say. You are using WP:OR and editorial bias by claiming the use of "box office bomb" by any RS in any context is targeted and irresponsible, and in doing so are violating WP:NPOV yourself. WP:NPOV isn't just for language you find offensive if it's verifiably used, Anon0098 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CreecregofLife, it is not Wikipedia's job to question how "irresponsible" reliable sources are. Wikipedia is not a media commentary outlet. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 00:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply wanted to clarify that I wasn't the first editor to use the term "box office bomb" and I don't know why you keep saying this. Crumpled Fire's edit from three days ago predates my edit and Crumpled Fire's reply above mentions that he was the first editor to use that term. Here's your own revert to Crumpled Fire's edit where you yourself mention in the edit summary "Not a bomb." The issue has always been you saying it's not a bomb given that there are more than a couple of editors who don't have a problem with the term "box office bomb." DemianStratford (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like you to elaborate on the specific credentials for a movie to be a bomb vs a disappointment then. And also it's not just "one person." Multiple RSs have been provided to youAnon0098 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s called factual accuracy. Just because a few cherry-picked sources were able to jump the gun after less than 10 days to call it a bomb does not make it a bomb. Reliable sources doesn’t mean reliable writers. Reliable sources does not mean they are right 100% of the time. If you won’t even read my arguments when I say the margin is too small to call it a bomb, then you were never arguing in good faith CreecregofLife (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware you are under the impression that margins are the defining factor, but I was asking for specific numbers and credentials instead of "the margin is too small." By what measure? Says who? If you have a problem with WP:VERIFY I encourage you to take it up with the admins. Until then we'll proceed with that. Anon0098 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not under an impression, I’m aware of the facts. “Says who?” Are you serious with that? The definition of box office bomb, that’s whoYou will not be proceeding with anything. You are so eager to power through and ignore actual facts and logic. You’re only looking to be validated by confirmation biases. You have no reliable sources, but I have to do all the goddamn work? The onus is still on you, verifiability doesn’t guarantee inclusion. CreecregofLife (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, plenty of sources have been provided to you. And according to the definition of box office bomb as per Box-office bomb, which again has already been provided to you, "any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed"". While the onus is on us for inclusion, you seem to be the only one vehemently against inclusion. And since your arguments are, in my opinion, extremely weak since you refuse to provide sources of your own, I believe consensus is significantly in favor of inclusion. We'll see what the admin who locked the page says though. Anon0098 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are in favor of a consensus that claims, essentially, the sky is always red. I have already shown how weak your argument is, that you completely stopped rebutting my points to take only the parts that support you out of context. You missed the part right before it where it states “highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run”. You need to meet the “highly” threshold, and your cherry-piced sources calling it a bomb after 9 days and the highest opening for an animated film during the pandemic era are not going to cut it. Every edit that continues to use the term once the article reopens should be considered vandalism. False information is not allowed on Wikipedia CreecregofLife (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good faith edits with proper RSs are NOT vandalism. Further instances of edit warring from you will be reported. Also BTW, I contacted the admin who protected the page and he said he didn't want to read through the talk page lol so if you want to revert page protection you can submit a request to WP:RFPP/D otherwise I'm good with just waiting for the restriction to lift and going from there. Anon0098 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say, however, that definite conclusions by reliable sources towards a film's performance comes months and sometimes years later, so we should adjust the content to that by the time later sources come out. On a side note, the "verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion" trend has only been in discussions about whether a detail(s) would be WP:TOOMUCH, but that's not what were discussing here. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2022
I would like my most recent edit undone. I don’t remember how it happened, but it was an accident and antithetical to what I believe should be CreecregofLife (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @CreecregofLife your last edit, or your last series of edits (i.e. revert to a version by another editor)? — xaosflux  Talk 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux It's disputed content with no consensus and shouldn't be restored. There is a reason why the article was locked by an admin. The user CreecregofLife has been part of various war edits with various users in this article and doesn't even add edit summaries for some of his edits. It would be irresponsible to revert to his edits. DemianStratford (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just the one most immediate to the protection. It restored text I did not mean to have restored CreecregofLife (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ as this is disputed, during protection for edit disputes. This is an opportunity for editors to work together, here on the talk page, to determine what the next content changes should be. — xaosflux  Talk 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed, my request has been hijacked. It is my edit I want undone and I will not close this request until the request is fulfilled. DemianStratford is WP:BLUDGEONing to get his way. According to WP:ONUS, Demian’s content must remain removed until he has consensus. He also violated WP:NPA by calling me an edit warrer and holding an alleged lack of use of the edit summary against me, when not everything needs an edit summary. The only fair thing to do is keep them away--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ The dispute of your proposed change is right above. Continuously enqueuing this as an edit request may be considered disruptive editing, so please don't do that. Once you made your edit you irrevocably agreed to release your contribution, so now it is everyone's content. — xaosflux  Talk 18:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My request was up for 18 minutes before it became disputed by someone who resorted to bludgeoning and personal attacks. They are the disruptive editor and should be considered when calling this a legitimate dispute CreecregofLife (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Protection during edit disputes is almost always at The Wrong Version - if there is a behavioral issue with an editor, WP:AN/I is around the corner and can delve it to that. — xaosflux  Talk 19:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 June 2022 (2)
Hi. the gross for films changes daily. Can we change the gross according to box office mojo and the numbers? Evope (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Evope (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ - you would need to provide both what you wanted to change this to, and a current reliable source to support what you want to change. — xaosflux  Talk 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2022
In light of overwhelming support for the usage of the word "bomb" and CreecregofLife's weak arguments against, please lift the Protection status with the consensus of using "box office bomb" in place of "box office disappointment" Anon0098 (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * you may contact the proecting admin directly or file a request at WP:RFPP/D. — xaosflux  Talk 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my b, thanks. Anon0098 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2022 (2)
Wanted to update the box office numbers to $160.6 million that was reported in the numbers website that’s used as a source Db9780 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ this need more review, this figure is in the article in 3 different places and has conflicting references. For example boxofficemojo says: 97.2 domestic, 64.1 int'; the-numbers.com says: 97.2 domestic, 63.4 int'l. A decision on what re fence is more current and/or more reliable needs to be made to force this in while the article is protected. Please discuss below, if a consensus arises please list each section you want changed specifically. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Box-office disappointment
This is getting ridiculous. I'm going to need you to cite sources saying this movie was not a disappointment, or some logical reason you are opposing this since you refuse to use edit summaries properly. I can at least see the argument that this does not fit into a bomb specifically, but virtually all sources admit this was a disappointment, failure, flop, etc, and from what I can see you have made no argument against that until this point. While I really am trying to assume good faith here, I really have a hard time understanding why you are still opposing this. In order to avoid a continued edit war I will not reinsert the information, but failure to provide additional sources or at least some good argument will result in me reinserting the material since while "bomb" was only accepted by the majority of editors, "disappointment" or some variation of that was approved by everyone. Anon0098 (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You were told by a third party that to say anything at all is premature. The fact that you’re still trying to push your narrative and frame me as the bad guy for merely agreeing is a major problem and shows you were never arguing in good faith CreecregofLife (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What third party? Indagate? Their edit summary literally says "bomb" is premature, sources outdated.. If this is not who you are referring to please give a name as I honestly dont know who you are referring to. And again, please give sources saying this was not a disappointment Anon0098 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Guys, I would strongly advise not making further edits to the disputed part of the page until this discussion has concluded, unless you want the page to be protected again. I haven't been following these discussions, and have no desire to get involved, but repeated edit-warring (regardless of who's right) is disruptive and could lead to blocks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on "box office bomb"
Hello, regarding our discussion in the past few days I thought we had already reached a consensus on box office bomb being an adequate term. Support/Oppose question: Do you support this film being described as a box-office bomb?

Definition according to Wikipedia: ''A box-office bomb, box-office flop, or box-office failure is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. Although any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed", the term is more frequently used for major studio releases that were highly anticipated, extensively marketed and expensive to produce that ultimately failed commercially.'' DemianStratford (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum:


 * Sources previously cited:, , , , ,


 * Additional sources since previous thread: ,

(feel free to add more), Anon0098 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hell no, you jumped the gun then and you’re not looking any better for it now CreecregofLife (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't have a problem with the terminology used. The definition fits and sources have told as much. DemianStratford (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it fit? By omitting the word “significantly”? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Read the definition. 2) I don't know what you mean. DemianStratford (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per various reasons listed above Anon0098 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support this is ridiculous, all I’ve been reading on this is that the film has disappointed in terms of the revenue it has generated. Disney was clearly expecting more income 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - various sources have already called it a bomb, and the numbers at this point make it clear that the film will lose on the order of $100 million. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you cited have already been called outdated and premature and can no longer be considered for use. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion - or, I should say, the opinion of you and one other editor, Indagate. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? These sources came out a week ago Anon0098 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * - Per a request at RFPP and the edit war appearing to have begun restarting after the prior protection lapsed, I have fully protected the article for five additional days. If you are able to reach consensus prior to then please let me (or another admin know) and the protection can be removed and the article updated accordingly.  If the discussion is still ongoing after the protection lapses, please do not resume editing the relevant/contentious sections until there is a consensus for how the article (and the box office results) should read.  Thanks, Mifter (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This was an unnecessary page protect, in my opinion. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * oh it was completely necessary. All you’ve done is recycle the same points from a week ago, not even bothering to realize it will break even. You’re not listening to outside parties, reusing the same outdated sources, the same ones eager to call it a bomb regardless of the actual situation. You thinking confirmation bias is enough for a consensus in complete ignorance of fact. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know that you think any disagreement over content is cause for locking down an article. Also good to know that you now think Lightyear will break even. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not just disagreement over content, it’s that you have repeatedly put back disputed information when told not to and before the discussion is even over. You even put it back in full with the same exact sources as before and claimed it was “compromise”. That is utterly dishonest. CreecregofLife (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that consensus was already reached. You were the only one still arguing. This is getting to the point of stonewalling imo, especially with your repeated abuse of page protection requests when users were engaging in compromise through editing. Anon0098 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Negotiating only with people who agree with you to maintain the exact wording you started at with the same exact weak, cherry-picked sourcing is not compromise. Since you refuse to actually do any compromising, I have no choice but to keep having the page protected against such a biased POV. CreecregofLife (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CRYSTAL. If it does break even we can change the wording then. But right now every source is calling this movie a failure Anon0098 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So then if it’s Crystal to call it not a bomb then it’s Crystal to call it a bomb. CreecregofLife (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No it is currently described as a bomb per RSs and is WP:CRYSTAL to baselessly assume it will, at some point in the far future, recuperate losses Anon0098 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you do not have reliable sources. Only one was considered passable when you placed them yet you insisted on placing all of them. You keep using week old sources to claim it’s “currently” described as a bomb. Please stop the dishonesty CreecregofLife (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong support - as per above comments, a plethora of sources are calling it a bomb. Also, it seems worth pointing out that even if the film were to recoup its production budget, that doesn't mean it's no longer a bomb. There's still the marketing budget to consider, which is likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is always additional/separate from the disclosed production budget. Take Terminator: Dark Fate as an example, not only is it called a box-office bomb in the lede, it's called one of the "biggest box-office bombs of all time", even though it earned $261 million against a $185 million production cost. The studio still lost hundreds of millions of dollars on it, and the planned sequels were halted.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 15:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “Plethora of sources” does not mean “plethora of reliable sources”. There will never be enough reliable sources calling it a bomb for it to be called a bomb on this page. CreecregofLife (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet you, in the past week of discussions, have failed to provide any RSs to the contrary Anon0098 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The contrary? The onus is still on you. “Box office bomb” was not used until Crumpled Fire put it in the lead when it was never in the body. The burden is on you to prove that everyome is explicitly calling it a bomb. That they’re using other language and not calling it a bomb means it is not a bomb CreecregofLife (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Even one of Pixar's other movies, The Good Dinosaur, is considered a box-office bomb having grossed $332.2 million on a $175–200 million budget. Because it was unprofitable and being a major Disney/Pixar release it was expected to make loads of money. The Wikipedia article says that it "caused Walt Disney Studios to lose $85 million unadjusted for inflation and the film to be considered [Pixars]'s first box-office bomb." DemianStratford (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wikipedia is not news so shouldn't include mention of Lightyear being a bomb so prominently in the lead, the sources cited are from early in its box office run so not commenting on latest figures so not noteworthy or useful. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of Wikipedia articles describe (in the lead) films that failed or disappointed at the box-office as box-office bombs, including those in this page, so I don't see the reason why this should be the exception. And the not news doesn't apply here at all, unless you want to elaborate. DemianStratford (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Souces provided are from a week ago. What has changed so drastically since then as to negate those? The film hasn't even recuperated production costs, and very likely will never recuperate additional marketing costs. Anon0098 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That the callings of it as a bomb were premature and sensationalist. Again you invoke CRYSTAL on me but “likely will never recuperate” is acceptable justification for calling it a bomb? CreecregofLife (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between the two arguments that you aren't grasping. WP:CRYSTAL is unsourced speculation. The film in its current state is a failure. You negating those RSs in favor of the argument that it could be successful one day and therefore we should ignore current RSs saying otherwise is unsupported and speculative. My assertion that it will very likely never recuperate costs is already grounded with RSs saying it is a failure. If it miraculously is successful and RSs reflect that language, we can change consensus in the future. Anon0098 (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your entire argument is based on speculation and technicality. You threw in the towel after 9 days and found as many garbage sources as you could to support your narrative, You have to prove your claims with reliable sources and you can’t. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I really have to stress that we and our opinions do not matter. We don't write articles, sources do. There is zero consensus among experts and journalists that it is a box office bomb. The highest quality sources don't refer to it as a bomb, but use other terminology. CNN for instances says "Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ fizzles at the box office". These are the sources you put the WP:WEIGHT for. You have to cherry pick very hard and cite some very low quality sources to find people calling it a bomb.
 * Support I do support that the film has so far been a box office bomb. While it can still make up ground with international grosses, right now it doesn't appear likely to break-even at this point. This source says that it needs to make at $400 million worldwide to do that. https://screenrant.com/lightyear-movie-budget-cost-how-much-box-office/ Until the film is at its final legs at the worldwide box office, we can at least say that it has underperformed but not bombed. I'm also going to make an edit request to add an additional reference to the sentence, "Some box office analysts theorized that family audiences were reluctant to attend theaters in general due to COVID-19 concerns, although this was seemingly disproven after Minions: The Rise of Gru opened to $108 million in the U.S. and Canada two weeks later." with this article. https://variety.com/2022/film/news/minions-the-rise-of-gru-box-office-record-lightyear-1235309097/ And1987 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Online only sites like Looper have have only been around for like 10 years, and being online only they have a tendency for lower quality journalism and sensationalism. I have a strong distrust of these kind of sources for this reason and will always consider older more traditional media higher quality. They have a longer history of higher quality journalism, and are less prone to sensationalism because online is only a fraction of their revenue. Yes, there is a big difference between Looper and CNN, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, Associated Press, etc.

Additionally, looking at the definition of box office bomb and then applying that to this film is the definition of "original research" which is strictly forbidden on wikipedia. Our personal opinions and analysis do not matter, as Wikipedia is a summarization of high quality scholarship. User:Harizotoh9 02:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't write that it "fizzled" at the box-office. There are terms for films that fail this badly at the box office: box-office bomb, box-office flop, or box-office failure. The media consensus is that it failed at the box office, therefore it's a box-office bomb. We have enough sources calling it a failure and next to zero calling it a great success. DemianStratford (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You were just told you don’t have enough sources. You are making unsourced claims that the losses are significant enough to call it a bomb. Nobody is telling you to call it a great success, but it is clear you are giving two choices at polar opposite ends when actual reliable sources are more nuanced. You really don’t get it. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We actually have pretty much every source. We don't need every single source to be explicitly calling it a box-office bomb. The sources range from "disappointed", "failed", "underwhelmed", "bombed", "tanked", etc. It doesn't matter. The writing is on the wall. There is a media consensus that is available to anyone. Coincidentally there is an industry term used when a film fails this badly at the box office, and that is box-office bomb. For example, Tenet (2020) had a budget of $200 million but only made $363.7 million, so the estimated losses range between $50-100 million . That is a box-office bomb. You have no clue how the film industry even works if you think Lightyear (2022) is not a box-office bomb. All the sources know this and have expressed as much one way or the other. DemianStratford (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are interpreting the headline way too literally. "Fizzle" is pretty much synonymous with "failed" here. Although I have heard conflicting comments about Looper's reliability, I disagree how long a source has been around really affects its reliability *cough* *cough* The Daily Mail *cough* *cough*. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - It clearly is a box office bomb. It still hasn't made more than its budget after weeks of release and that's before adding marketing and distribution costs, which are dozens of millions of their own. Saimcheeda (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. It is by definition a box office bomb. Within a month of its release it still has not made back its budget and more, without taking into account the costs of marketing and distribution. Various sources and articles are calling it a bomb, or using similar terminology. Deiadameian (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support for obvious reasons. On second thought, wait months after the movie release for a definite consensus to determine whether it was truly a failure. The numbers don't look good as of now, but there is truth to the fact that the box-office bomb claims are all weeks ago. Until that time, base the description of the commercial performance in the lead per the sources then. WP:WEIGHT User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 19:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support as I am seeing sources left and right refer to it as such, you also have to take into account money spent on advertising that isn't factored into the budget. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 *  Strong Support The article for The Good Dinosaur, which made almost twice as much money as Lightyear on the same budget, is clearly called a box office bomb in the lede and has been for years. And that article is classified as Good. Other than politics, there's no reason why The Good Dinosaur should be called a bomb and Lightyear shouldn't. --Somarain (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that as of now, Lightyear is still running at the Box Office whereas The Good Dinosaur ended its run years ago, so claims about whether it was a bomb should be made from sources published after Lightyear's run is finished. User:HumanxAnthro ( Nina Cortex x Coco Bandicoot ) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fair as looking back, The Good Dinosaur was not called a bomb on Wikipedia during its theatrical run. Still, analysts calling it a bomb/disappointment are good enough for me. I don't believe there's any precedent of a film's earnings taking the kind of path Lightyear would have to to become profitable, and that's why these analysts are predicting its poor earnings will continue. I'll move back to just a regular support. Somarain (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't typically get involved in content disputes like this one, but the arguments for including box-office bomb make more sense to me, especially given marketing, talent participation and other budget aspects. It seems like there is strong opposition by only a select few, but a majority seems to favor inclusion given that the movie has been through three weekends, including a holiday. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 13:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (for now) It looks like consensus here is leaning toward "support", which I think is probably fine, but I believe this is an instance where some time will provide a definitive conclusion, either way. It is usually not the best practice to delay dispute resolution, but I believe WP:DEADLINE is useful here. The dispute is over language used for how a film performed at the box office, while the film is currently still at the box office. The film will be out of theaters relatively soon, and then there will be no "maybe it will break even" or "maybe it will lose millions", etc. An answer will be provided and, to points raised above, this would also allow for a consensus to be reached among reliable sources. I typically try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF, but since it was mentioned, the article on The Good Dinosaur does refer to that film as a box-office bomb, however, that language was not added to the article until over three years after the film's release. Beyond the language used, though, that article's history shows this same dispute arose within weeks of that film's release, and while "box-office bomb" was not added for year, the basic dispute around the film's performance being negative appears to have naturally solved itself within a couple months, as the film left theaters. Just my two cents. - <b style="background:#F83;color:Black;"> Chicken</b><b style="background-color:black; color:#F83;">monkey </b> 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 July 2022
I would like to add an additional reference to this sentence, "Some box office analysts theorized that family audiences were reluctant to attend theaters in general due to COVID-19 concerns, although this was seemingly disproven after Minions: The Rise of Gru opened to $108 million in the U.S. and Canada two weeks later." with this. And1987 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ added, bypassed protection as this does not appear to be part of the content dispute that led to the current protection. — xaosflux  Talk 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2022
Change "The film made $6.6 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." in #Box_office with "The film made $6.5 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." Also, please change the citation that follows the sentence with this source from Box Office Mojo: These are the Monday actuals. A person in Georgia (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2022
Can someone change the box office gross? On box office mojo and the numbers shows the daily gross. --Evope (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Evope (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ as this page is no longer protected, it may be edited directly. — xaosflux  Talk 17:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternate timeline
The current Plot refers to Zurg as being from “an alternate timeline”. But in fact Zurg is from the original timeline, while Buzz’s timeline became the alternate when Zurg traveled back in time.

Therefore I suggest the following edit starting with “Following an encounter …”:

Following an encounter, Zurg abducts Buzz, bringing him aboard his ship. Zurg reveals that he is an older Buzz from the future who has now traveled back in time, thereby creating a new alternate timeline inhabited by both of them. In the original timeline, following his successful hyperspace test, Buzz faced arrest from Burnside’s forces, but escaped. Bsoo (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Turing red
Turing red was also a box office failure see List of biggest box-office bombs with Estimated lost of $167 million 92.236.253.249 (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's true that Turning Red is a major box-office bomb on paper, but that's mostly because it barely got a theatrical release (I don't think it was shown in theaters at all in the U.S.), and got most of its money from streaming, which is not reflected in the box office total for this movie. I don't know if anyone outside of Disney knows how much money Turning Red made, or even whether it made or lost money. Arguably, the same could be said for Onward, which was released just as the pandemic was getting started - I get the sense that, for Onward, people are more confident about calling it a money-loser, but again, I think no one outside of Disney knows for sure. So maybe it's best to just remove that "Pixar's third box-office bomb" wording from the intro, as opposed to replacing it with something awkward like "Pixar's second, third or fourth box-office bomb". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also two things
 * 1st is it a bit too soon to label it as a failure :
 * 2nd do we need to mention how many failures Pixar’s has had DWA films do not mention for example on Spirit Untamed it does not say it was dwa’s 7th box office failure (or how many they now have) it just say “movie was a box-office bomb after grossing $42 million worldwide against a budget of $30 million”.

92.236.253.249 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's true - there would be no real need to specify what number bomb Lightyear was even if that number were clear. But no, I don't think it's too soon to label it a failure - the movie has been out for nearly a month already; it's not suddenly going to double its revenues. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

How about we say “ The film is considered to be a box-office bomb‘ is simply 92.236.253.249 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Lukewarm reviews
75% and 6.7/10 on Rotten Tomatoes, 60 on Metacritic. I think the reception occupies that space between "generally positive" reviews and "mixed" or "lukewarm" reviews. I propose calling the response "mixed to positive", which is common for media in this zone as you can see here. Somarain (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, turns out Disney has announced it will be available for streaming in August https://www.cartoonbrew.com/streaming/lightyear-disney-streaming-release-date-august-218966.html 71.190.233.44 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As opposed to "generally positive"? Sure go ahead. Feel free to be bold in your editing in the future Anon0098 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, the lead should read "mixed or average reviews" (which is more closer to the truth) rather than "generally positive reviews" (which is frankly deceiving). Would you like to edit it yourself? DemianStratford (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You can please keep the international theatrical poster
I was in Europe a few months ago and saw the movie on June 14th, it had it's opening on June 17th in America. Sorry if adding the poster was an inconvenience to anyone. 72.252.138.56 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one poster is used on film articles, in order to meet the "minimal usage" criterion of WP:NFC. Since this is an American film, the U.S. poster is used. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Lightyear (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lightyear (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"the Turnip’s escape trajectory is compromised by Buzz" - how?
The article says that "the Turnip’s escape trajectory is compromised by Buzz". How, exactly? I didn't see him do anything that doomed the escape flight (though he blames himself for it). - Brian Kendig (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)