Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs

Trimmed list
The list is currently limited to a soft limit of around 100 films. Films cut from the list will be maintained here in the event that we need to re-add one or in case the decision is taken to extend the list at some point. Betty Logan (talk)

Filmsite.org

 * Paint Your Wagon (film)
 * Zabriskie Point (film)
 * The Message (1976 film)
 * Sorcerer (film)
 * Raise the Titanic (film)
 * Lion of the Desert
 * Roar (1981 film)
 * Dune (1984 film)
 * Howard the Duck (film)
 * Shanghai Surprise
 * Leonard Part 6
 * Last Action Hero
 * Judge Dredd (film)
 * Money Train (film)
 * Speed 2: Cruise Control
 * The Avengers (1998 film)
 * Meet Joe Black
 * Wild Wild West

Betty Logan (talk)

The Marvels
The Marvels just grossed around 200 million against a 270 Million dollar budget. How long is it going to be before it's added to this page. What are the most reliable sources estimated the box office loss as of now? UnboundBeartic (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * $70M loss is too low for inclusion. M asem (t) 01:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not True at all, Actually, some of the films on this page have a loss of less then 70M. Plus if you factor in the Break Even Point which is somewhere between 540M and 700M then the loss is somewhere between 330M and 500M. UnboundBeartic (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the films on this list have lost potentially $90 million or more, adjusted to 2022 prices. That is clearly stated in the paragraph preceding the chart. There are some films where the nominal loss is under $70 million (Heaven's Gate, for example) but the adjusted loss in all cases is over $90 million. If it has lost as much money as you say then it will be added to the list in due course, once we get some concrete loss figures. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Its the loss adjusted for inflation, so older films may have losses in their day <$70m but now are over $95m. As the Marvels just happened this year, that $70m is what we work with, and unless a reliable source gives us the actual full production and marketing/distribution budget, we go with the reported production budget numbers. M asem (t) 05:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They have to make at least twice the budget to Break Even, The Break Even Point is at least $548m So it cost Disney at least $343m. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats original research, however. Not all films require that to break even. M asem (t) 14:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well any big budget films especially one's on Marvel's level do. Plus that's not including marketing which was probably really high. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, here's some sources proving my point.
 * https://collider.com/the-marvels-gross-break-even/#:~:text=A%20budget%20that%20high%2C%20combined,if%20it%27s%20to%20squeeze%20into
 * https://gamerant.com/the-marvels-box-office-numbers-break-even/ UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If The Marvels has indeed lost $343 million, that would mean it has obliterated the record held by Lone Ranger/John Carter by a good $100 million. That would be massive news, and yet I haven't seen news outlet report it. If it is the biggest bomb ever, then it's only a matter of time before that is reported and when it is the film will be added to this list. There's obviously a reason why the likes of Variety//Hollywood Reporter/Deadline are not reporting that type of loss—either it is incorrect, or if it is correct they have not been able to corroborate it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well which of these sources reliable? UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources above provide a loss figure of $343 million, just that it would need to earn $700 million to enter profitability. It's also not clear whether that $700 million figure represents the studio revenue figure or if it includes the theaters' share as well. As I said, if the film had indeed lost $343 million (a solid $100 million more than the previous record-holder) then that would be big news, but nobody is reporting losses of that magnitude. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I found another reliable source with a break-even point confirming a lower break even point.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=25fb397638da UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.mensjournal.com/streaming/the-marvels-must-make-440-million-to-break-even# UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a comment on this specific discussion, just letting you know that the Forbes source may not necessarily be considered reliable. Per WP:RSP, articles written by Forbes Staff Writers are generally considered reliable, while articles written by "Senior Contributors", such as the one you've linked above, are generally not considered reliable. (FYI) - w o lf 08:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See the earlier "The Marvels" section above, but there is exception for Caroline Reid as a reliable source despite being a Forbes contributor. Normally you're right but we do have a case for her as an reputable source. M asem (t) 13:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like talking to a brick wall. This list documents losses, not break-even points: a break-even point is not representative of the loss if it includes the theaters' share of the gross. And you cannot deduce the loss from the break-even point without knowing how much the film has taken from its ancillary revenue streams. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not True at all, many of the films on this site take the Break Even Point into account. UnboundBeartic (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not a single film here where loss has been determined by us based on a theoretical break-even point. I know that for a fact because I helped build the list and have vetted every single film on it. Every single film on this list is accompanied by a reliable source that states clearly how much money the film has lost. Even if we could do what you are suggesting (which actually is not possible unless you know the theater share, the marketing costs and projected ancillary revenue) we wouldn't be permitted to because it would violate WP:Original research. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Or to stress more, if we have a source that says that (well after the film's theatrical release) the total losses greatly exceeded the budget by a numerical figure that includes the Break Even Point estimates, that's fine. We can use such "original research" when put forth by reliable sources. But we simply cannot make that leap of logic ourselves, even if we know what base industry estimates might be. M asem (t) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2022 entries on this list were added earlier this year. Any 2023 films that make the cut will most likely be added some time next year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Question, if next year, reliable sources say the film had a box office loss of $500 Million Dollars. How much will it affect this and several other similar pages? UnboundBeartic (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If a source like Variety or Hollywood Reports asserts the Marvels lost $500M, then yes, it would go on this list. What other pages that would be affected we don't know.
 * I will say that your insistence to get Marvels added is edging on WP:TE, and also along the likes of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but in this case, because you may feel it must be included because it was a poorly reviewed and performing Marvel CU film. That's not how editing on WP works. We have to go by sources. M asem (t) 01:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * box office: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt10676048/
 * budget: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=591aa68938da
 * loss on budget alone will be over 100 million not including all of the delays, reshoots, and marketing and promotion. plenty more links for box office, budget showing 100 million+ loss Holydiver82 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two sources you have provided state the losses incurred. As explained above, we do not add editorial guesswork to the article as it would violate WP:Original research. Films are added to the list as and when a reliable source publishes a credible loss figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, as stated in multiple ways throughout this page and its archives, we need to wait until we have a final estimate from a high-quality source that combines all known factors into a grand total calculation. Carolyn Reid's source is a great start, but it is not a final estimate (it was published a couple months prior to the film's release).
 * Side note: Please stop breaking up your sentences into individual lines. This can make discussions harder to follow, especially when your response shares the same indentation as other responses above yours. I have fixed it this time, but you should do this moving forward; write in paragraph form. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://thedirect.com/article/the-marvels-box-office-mcu
 * this source puts loss at 255 million Holydiver82 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Never heard of TheDirect, and if a film had lost $255 million then top tier media outlets such as Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter would have picked up on the story. Besides, The Direct does not put the loss at $255 million; this is what they actual say: "So, The Marvels appears to have lost Disney and Marvel Studios around $255 million looking exclusively at the figures from its theatrical run. Luckily, much of this revenue ought to be recouped in home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+." I reiterate what I stated below: it helps to read the whole article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * does this list of box office bombs use the box office revenue or all revenue generated by the film? because this article will need a massive update if we are including home entertainment sales and after box office earnings. i was under the impression this box office bomb list was about the box office figures. correct me if i am wrong, so i can go through and start looking at all the films listed as bombs and review the listed losses to see if the sources take into account the total revenue generated years after it left theaters Holydiver82 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Direct is largely a fan site/blog, and it is deemed an unreliable source by the MCU taskforce standards. It is not an official source for box office information, let alone a highly reputable source for its terminology or labeling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * good to know, thanks Holydiver82 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Going back to your point about post-box office revenue, perhaps can shed some light on that. I realize some sources like Deadline release total revenue that includes post-box office, but other sources don't always specify that's been taken into account. Also considering the term is "box office bomb", should box office revenue be the only factor assessed when making that determination? It's definitely a good question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Profit/loss analysis should make a reasonable attempt to account for revenue from ancillary markets, and costs such as marketing and distribution. This doesn't mean the sources require a full audit of those things, though. If you take The Man from UNCLE discussion below, THR based its analysis on a projection of the box-office gross, and based its analysis on reasonable assumptions about ancillary revenue. Once a film has been in play in all of its major markets for a few weeks, the box-office trajectory is relatively straightforward to project, as most films follow a logarithmic curve (you can see this here). The overseas ratio often stabilises, and the box-office usually accounts for at least half of a film's income these days. Once you reach that point, either the studio or industry writers can porject how much they are likely to lose. Some sources such as THR offer a "snapshot", while others such TheNumbers treat their biggest money-loses chart as a work in progress, updating their projections depending on how strong home video sales are.
 * Ultimately, films go on making money indefinitely; both Cleopatra and Waterworld move out of bomb territory thanks to licensing of TV rights. A similar thing happened with Justice League which lost a ton in theaters but had surprisingly strong home video sales (which didn't save it from bomb stats, but moved it off this chart). John Carter was especially interesting, because Disney itself took a writedown of $200 million, and TheNumbers projected that the loss ended up being half of that. The porcess for this chart is straightforward: we wait for a reputable source to bring forward some meaningful analysis and we add it to the list if it qualifies; if those numbers change based on future sales then we update accordingly, if the source is available. Due to the inherent uncertainty linked to the figures, it is why this chart is not numbered. It is also why we have more than 100 films on the list, because we actually have more than 100 films competing for the top 100 places, on the basis that some films have loss "ranges".
 * In recent months, unfortunately, the list has become something of a battleground for editors from rival comic-book camps. For those of us who maintain this article it is just a numerical exercise: we don't actually care which films make the list and which don't; we only care about the quality of the source. The numbers aren't really that important at the end of the day because we are not a financial tracker, they just provide a quantitative criteria for us to approximate list of the biggest bombs of all-time. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary. So it seems the viewpoint, then, is that a film that bombs at the box office but makes up the loss in whole or part through post-box-office revenue (i.e. home entertainment sales, streaming, etc.) would have the ability to shake the box-office bomb label. Perhaps that's what trips up editors that assume the label only applies to the theatrical run and the revenue generated from that portion of a film's lifespan. Admittedly, I would have assumed the same. You would think there's a difference between bombing at the box office and bombing overall. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you can probably make a case for the distinction, but most sources don't so we are stuck with what we can source. Ancillary markets are kind of factored in now, and pretty much everything except the tentpoles are not expected to break even until they hit home video. Deadline did a really interesting article on this issue in relation to Waterworld and how even though it has entered profitability it is still thought of as flop. This article has had several titles down the years; around a decade ago it was called List of movies generating losses, which was probably less ambiguous, but a less intuitive name. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, at the very least, it seems the context should probably be scrutinized more closely in sources moving forward (note to self). One source might label a film a box-office bomb based on analysis of its theatrical run, while another shows the film nearly broke even and didn't flop based on ancillary revenue. In this hypothetical, neither is necessarily wrong, and retaining the box-office bomb label in the article could still be reasonably argued (assuming MOS:ACCLAIMED is satisfied). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * do you count home entertainment sales including subsidiaries "paying" each other for streaming rights? If so how do you source that. Because you made a point of putting that in bold in previous replies and it's a significant distinction Holydiver82 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We would need a reliable source to discuss that side of income. Most actually don't. Its why the COVID-released films like Turning Red are on this list because of the technicality that we can only readily track box office. From a read of how the film went at Disney, it wasn't considered a complete failure, just that Disney isn't going to let us in on how they financially calculated that. So it gets the Asterisk of Doom on this list. M asem (t) 05:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * considering disney can assign any arbitrary amount to "pay" itself for streaming rights of its own films it would be a totally useless and irrelevant figure. its simply a hollywood accounting entry to say one subsidiary of disney "paid" another subsidiary 10 mill, 50 mill, 100 mill for the streaming rights and then call that revenue for the film. no one actually gets any money, its just for accounting purposes and to move losses around different subsidiaries. if this list includes "home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+ as stated by Betty then it is not actually a list of box office bombs Holydiver82 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * However, in classifying box office bombs, if the media has access to home releases, and that still makes it a significant loss, they will still call it a box office bomb, probably because its theatrical release didn't pan out. It's not up to us to remove entries that have big losses even after home media is accounted for. It does point to the issue that the total profits and total costs of a film are not consistently track to include all facets (international, home and streaming media as profit; marketing and promotion as costs), so we just have to take what reliable sources give us. M asem (t) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The prose makes the scope of the topic very clear: The following is a partial list of films that lost the most money, based on documented losses or estimated by expert analysis of various financial factors such as the production budget, marketing and distribution costs, gross box-office receipts and other ancillary revenues. Most reputable sources do not limit their analysis just to box-office receipts: Deadline doesn't, The Hollywood Reporter doesn't, The Numbers doesn't, which would take out the bulk of the sources we rely on. If you think the article is inappropriately named then you are free to initiate a rename discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Deadline just released their list for 2023, and the Marvels is at the top with an estimated net loss of $237 million. I think it's finally time to add it in. Auzewasright (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like it will go to the very top of the list with the biggest bomb in history. Seems impossible not to include it on the list now. Will also need to update the page to link to this list once it's added...assuming it is... Holydiver82 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Hopefully this will let the discussion on whether to call it a bomb rest. Auzewasright (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Variety, The Marvels lost $237 Million dollars, that's a bigger loss that John Carter. Will the film be added to the list? Rov124 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment – The Deadline source is counting the production cost as $270 million, but we know from the Carolyn Reid source that Disney received a $55 million subsidy credit from the UK government, bringing the total production cost down from $274.8 million to $219.8 million. So the true loss is really closer to $187 million. For whatever reason, this was not factored into Deadline's analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide reliable sources that show a different loss figure. Otherwise that's just speculation Holydiver82 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The $55 million tax break is not speculation and is even mentioned/cited in the film article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with what the reliable sources say. Post up other reliable sources to support your number. Doing your own math is very much speculation and your number is very much not from a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, which requires reliable sources. Not an editors opinion and personal calculation Holydiver82 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should probably read my reply below and stop getting so excited. I have no intention of inserting unsourced numbers. However, we can certainly scrutinize the reliability of what is being reported. Deadline claims the production cost was $270 million, but we have a competing reliable source that says it was $219.8 million. If you don't understand what is being discussed here, I advise you sit this one out. Your comments are not contributing to the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your arguing about the total loss, and providing your own figure. Without providing any reliable sources to support that. You should go find reliable sources if you want to suggest a different loss figure Holydiver82 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to keep repeating yourself? Clearly you do not understand this is about the reliability of the $270 million figure from Deadline. The full production cost is actually $274.8 million (without the tax break) and $219.8 million (with the tax break). Deadline gets neither right, and that's a legitimate concern. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of these trades like Deadline and Variety tend to round these figures into different estimates. Forbes (at least Caroline Reid) has a tendency to provide more accurate figures for these budgets. Again, Deadline's figures are estimates, and regardless of their estimated budget, its report is still reliable for the fact that it lost money, which is what the focus should be here. Trying to focus on little details in these estimates is indicative of this process. As long as we note to our readers these are, in fact, estimates, there should be no issue here. Trailblazer101 (talk) Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trail, ignore the dribble above that blew this way out of proportion. This was more of a side note than a protest, as the discussion below indicates, thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as we have this titled as "Estimated losses", things like tax breaks that offset the loss that don't appear accounted in the actual reliable sources estimating the loss should not affect this list. Accounting for total losses based on multiple sources enters into a territory that WP:SYNTH calculations would be problematic. We want one source to report one complete number and use that. M asem (t) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that while we should not combine sources to produce a problematic WP:SYNTH scenario, we can still scrutinize the accuracy of the source. They are labeling this a "studio" loss and even factored in "interest and overhead", yet they neglected to include a tax break that without a doubt affects the studio's bottom line. It is concerning (unless I'm missing something). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like an oversight, but some of their other estimates could be out as well. I would be amazed if the TV & streaming outperformed the box-office. We do have some wildly differing estimates on the list (see John Carter for example). To definitively state this film lost $237 million would require a secondary source to conduct analysis of audited accounts. That generally only happens in very unique circumstances. This list is essentially a list of the "biggest box-office bombs" based on an approximate quantitative criteria. Whether the film lost $237 million or $187 million, it would seemingly qualify under either scenario, the figures are basically just there to show how they qualified for the list. This is just one estimate at the end of the day, and The Numbers has still yet to update its list for 2023 and that may provide a different figure, and yield a realistic loss range. You could try contacting Deadline to point out they omitted the subsidy—they do pride themselves on accuracy, so I don't see why they wouldn't fix the error in that case. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also worth pointing out they low-balled the budget for Indy 5 too. Forbes updated the net budget to $326 million with a later set of figures, which hasn't been factored into the loss estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * very true. And I haven't seen any sources include the reshoots which cost millions into the final budget amounts. Most of the Disney films have massive reshoots before release Holydiver82 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Betty, appreciate the insight. It was only my intention to express concern about the numbers so that it was noted somewhere. Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the oversight! Hopefully we get additional clarity down the road, but if not, it is what it is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend I'm not frustrated by it, but we do set ourselves up to fail to some extent with lists like this. We do the best we can with patchy information. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Madame Web
How much money did it lose? Could it be put on this list? 2.37.17.23 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Way way way too soon, wait for it to have been out a month to start looking for reliable sourcing. M asem (t) 00:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please stop asking for general help on this page, like "How much did a film lose", "Can it be added to the list", etc. You've done this at least 4 times now in recent months. Future posts like this will be immediately removed. This page is not a forum or helpdesk; it should be used for discussing specific improvements to the article based on claims in reliable sources. If you do not have any reliable sources to share, spend your time researching instead of posting here. You can also take your questions to non-Wikipedia platforms such as Reddit, which is better suited for general discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Argylle
Aygylle is officially out of theaters this week and with it having a $200 million budget and only made $94.4 millon, safe to say it should be here BoiLeoKing (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hopefully from the comments in other threads above, you understand that we cannot look at the numbers and guess the amount that a film lost. We know the budget and box office, yes, but there are a lot of other hidden variables, such as tax credits, which may not get reported until the end of the tax filing season. Also in different countries, theaters get a different cut of the revenue, which affects profit. We need a reliable source that reports an estimated loss (at least a range) before it can be added to the list. Until then it sits on a waitlist, and all we can do is say, "Yeah, we know it lost a lot, but we can't say how much exactly." -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Disney's Wish
It ended its box office, making 254 million, against over 200 million dollar budget. Does that count on the list? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We need reliable sources backing up a description of it as a bomb, otherwise it's original research. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a profit of 54m, so no. M asem (t) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Advertisement, its usually said you need somewhere between 1.5 to 2.5 the budget to actually make a profit Braganza (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the added costs of marketing beyond the reported budget are well recognized but we need a reliable source to document that total number and assert that it was a box office bomb/flop. M asem (t) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that's very much not how box office revenue works for the studio making the film. i find it very bizarre how many people post on these topics who do not understand how box office revenue works at all. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But don't you also find it "bizarre" how many posts are asking about film losses? Why are we evaluating raw numbers to begin with? We shouldn't be. That's not our job. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * no I do not. people asking about movies that obviously lost disney significant amounts of money, in this case easy estimate of 50 million+. so someone who clearly does not understand all the rules and regulations of wikipedia asking if films that lost huge amounts of money belong on the list seems like the exact thing that should be on the talk page. just LOL. in fact it would seem to make sense to start a talk for each film that appears to belong on the list to work out the sourcing and determine if it should be added. pretty much the entire purpose of the talk page Holydiver82 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, big shocker. When the same question is answered the same way each time, yet gets asked repeatedly over and over, it goes from being a productive use of the community's time to being disruptive. Talk pages can be used to help determine if source(s) qualify, but if you come to the table empty handed and overlook/ignore similar discussions already on the page, you're wasting everyone's time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The Flash (and other films)
just added a 2024 Deadline source that has the Flash at a $155m loss, so that can be added too, finally. — M asem (t) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume we can now add several films frequently discussed above. Here's the Deadline source I recently saw mentioned on another talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, TropicAces had used that source to add Wish and update Indy 5, hence why I pointed out the Flash is in there too. TropicAces did get to adding that (I wasn't in a position then to do that easily) — M asem (t) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder why The Marvels and Haunted Mansion were taken off this morning. Was it by mistake? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They weren't added yet, not that they were on there. — M asem (t) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just a relief to wrap up this saga about The Flash. It finished just outside my predicted range of $100–150 million, but far enough away from $200 million to show why it's better to wait for a credible source. Hopefully we can have a few weeks off before the 2024 flops land... Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bump threshold to $100M?
with the recent additions from 2023 flops, should we bump up the lower end threshhold for include to $100M (adjusted for inflation)? That would remove only 6 or 7 films from the list. — M asem (t) 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It doesn't quite work like that, Masem, because you also have the budget ranges to take into account i.e. technically a film with an estimate of $70–100 million could be lower or higher than a film that cost $95 million. So basically you have to count it twice, once for the upper-bound estimates and again for the lower-bound estimates. When I raised the limit to $95 million it wasn't possible to set the bar to $100 million because there were too many lower-bounds below $100 million. However, once we fully update the list I can recalculate the threshold. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, forgot about the ones with loss ranges. M asem (t) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion
Thanks to Film Update on Twitter, Haunted Mansion lost around 117 million. 68.71.12.18 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Flushed Away
It’s been reported that it had a $109 million write down 2605:B100:534:8CF9:B8F1:88FD:4839:C9B5 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That write down appears to be a company-wide aspect, not the loss associated only with that film (those the film's loss compounded into that $109M write down) M asem (t) 12:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

add studio to list of information?
wondering how hard it would be and/or how possible it would be to include the studio that produced the film to be included with the information. so for instance you could sort the table by studio as well as say year or loss amount Holydiver82 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The table already has enough content as it is related to box office performance. How would the studio(s) suffice in that regard? If it's just to see which films are by which studio, that information can be located at the individual film articles. Rather, a brief overview table listing which studios have the most films that were big box-office bombs would make more sense, though that may be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, which is what I think adding the studios to the table would be, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * purely for curiosity. A table the same way for example the emmy Award list each studio with number would be cool to have. Like each studio and number of films on list. Purely because it's interesting to see. No idea how undue weight impacts this Holydiver82 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The studio has no bearing on whether a film is a bomb or not, and it is not even clear what "studio" means in this capacity. Are we talking production companies (of which there are sometimes many), distributors (of which there are sometimes many)? Either way I don't see the value in either. Even if these were small tables where space wasn't as a premium I would oppose the proposal on the basis that company information serves no encyclopedic purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I could potentially see the value in listing the production company if it were always singular allowing for some kind of sorting, but as Betty states, it is not. So its inclusion wouldn't be beneficial to this chart, especially one that is trying to emphasize numbers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I.S.S
An american film that was premiered at the 2023 Tribeca Film Festival, and was theatrically released in USA on January 19th, 2024, by Bleecker Street.

It made 6.6 million, against the budget over 13.8 million. I'm impressed of the budget, just like Minus One.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.S.S._(film) 24.235.144.97 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another Wikipedia article can't be used as a source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way with a budget that size this will have a loss greater than 95mill, the current tyresilh for inclusion. — M asem (t) 16:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

mad max
why is mad max already on the list when it is still in theatres? there is absolutely no way to know how much money it will potentially lose. what happened to WP:norush? the only source provided gives an "estimate" based on bad data, 144 gross when the movie now stands at over 160 million gross. how is that source enough to add this film to the list already Holydiver82 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * While I get the concern, you shouldn't have just removed it without further discussion here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it had been over a day, if no one wants to discuss it then i will fix it Holydiver82 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thomas and the Magic Railroad
It had a $19 million budget and only grossed over $19.5 million just not enough to break even 69.159.165.127 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One, we need a source that refers to it as a box office bomb. Second at the numbers of that size, there is very little chance that will reach the current 95 mill. Loss threshold we are using right now. — M asem (t) 16:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
I read that "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" could have a loss of 100+ million dollars. This is the source: ‘Quantumania’ Bigger Marvel Bust Than Originally Thought

Could I add "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" on the list of the biggest flops? Filippo.g204 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not on the basis of this source. Cosmic Book New looks like a blog to me, and they are not a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. Even if it is reliable, it is still very low quality and it is clear from the article the author is guessing, rather than reporting facts or expert analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What about this source? Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’s Massive Budget Filippo.g204 (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's also a blog. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Men in black: international
That movie lost the most money out of all the men in black movies 2605:B100:510:D34A:15C9:E1:4E62:6D4 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Our sources on that film page say it broke even by best estimates. That will not make the list. M asem (t) 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur. The other three appear to have been highly profitable, so "losing" the most money out of the four isn't much of a claim to fame. Using the very crude 2.5x the budget metric would take it close to breaking even. Basically we are at the stage where a film needs to lose close to $100 million to make the cut, so losses of that magnitude are unlikely to slip under the radar. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fly me to the moon
Budget: 100 million Made 800 thousand at debut. Nowadays grossed 19 million 2.34.154.31 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No sources provided to support this as one of the biggest bombs. Far too recent of a release to make a call this early on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An Italian source called its debut "flop del secolo" (Flop of the Century)
 * https://cinema.everyeye.it/notizie/flop-secolo-fly-to-the-moon-budget-100-milioni-budget-esordio-800mila-729463.html 37.179.67.102 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a much better source than that, especially given its WP:EXCEPTIONAL and dubious claim. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part and The Lego Ninjago Movie
they were both considered box office disappointments 2605:B100:505:1958:E51D:57DC:8AEC:69F (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Neither have estimated loss numbers to know where they would fall here. Given their box office and production budgets reported, they likely would be modest losses and not high enough to include here. Just being a box office disappointment is not a basis to include here, we need numbers to support that. M asem (t) 14:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Aardman’s Early Man
Should that movie be added on the list 205.172.121.203 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any sources that give us a box office bomb claim and a loss estimate? Just being poorly performing is not equal to being a bomb. — M asem (t) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)