Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs/Archive 4

Millions
WP:MOSFILM decided by consensus that budget and box office gross figures to the nearest millions. For consistency that should happen here too. -- 109.79.181.42 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Numbers are typically rounded to the nearest tenth of a million (or hundred thousand), and this is clearly demonstrated in the documentation at Template:Infobox film (under gross). If you look at the table in this article, you'll notice that's exactly how the numbers are displayed. They are rounded the same way. The only difference is that instead of saying $61.7 million, for example, it's written as $61,700,000. In other words, we're using the longhand form instead of shorthand. Nothing wrong with doing that in a table. If it were in prose, then I would advise changing to the shorthand form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @109.79.181.42, Do you have link to that discussion and consensus? I didn't notice any mention of rounding box office figures under "Box office" at mos:film, or on the talk page (or the two most recent archived talk pages, but I didn't check all 17 of them). Thanks (I will notify the IP user's talk page, since we can't ping them). - the WOLF  child  18:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Call it what you will, it seems inconsistent to use the longhand version here. (I approve of the shorthand version in prose, I never saw the point of insisting on it for the Infobox, but it was the consensus.) I think the longhand looks untidy too.
 * If there is a local consensus to do differently from the WP:MOSFILM consensus and keep the longhand, so long as it is clearly indicated somewhere so that others that might share my opinion will know not to try and change it, then so be it. -- 109.79.181.42 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So you've referenced a consensus at MOS:FILM. May I ask where you see this consensus regarding shorthand vs longhand? The only discussions I'm aware of focused on infoboxes and prose, not tables used arbitrarily within an article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. And it seems the jist of that answer is that said "consensus at mos:film" doesn't actually exist, and "Call it what you will"... "consensus", or this IP user's "personal preference", this is how they think it should be. - the WOLF  child  21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're referencing the same arguments and interpreting them as a reason to list numbers longhand with many zeroes. I disagree, I think the intent of those same arguments were about shorthand as much as it was about rounding. You are making a special distinction. Are we not trying to write an encyclopedia? There are times where simplification adds to clarity. All I'm saying is that in this case it would be clearer to define the whole table in millions and make the overall point more clear to readers. I am saying that listing many zeroes reduces clarity. I think rounding would help clarity and make the page better. -- 109.79.181.42 (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"I am saying that listing many zeroes reduces clarity. I think rounding would help clarity and make the page better." - Then just say that. I, and I suspect others here as well, have no idea what "arguments" you are referring to, just like we have no idea where this mythical "consensus" you referred to is. (And don't say you didn't, it's the first four words in the opening sentence of your opening post for this discussion).

The thing is, now that we're on track, I don't necessarily disagree with you. Perhaps the table would look better if we shortened all those long form millions to short form ($100,000,000 → $100M). If there is a policy or guideline that does state they should be written that way, then they should be changed, unless someone here can make a case to keep them as is. If there isn't any guidance on the matter, then there is couple ways you can go about it;
 * 1) You can just go and boldly change them all yourself (it helps if you know wiki-markup), but be prepared to have all that work challenged and possibly undone. Or,
 * 2) You can suggest the change here (start with a clean new opening post in a new section, and leave out comments about "consensus" and such unless you can support it). This will likely lead to some discussion, with supporters and dissenters, perhaps even a straw poll, and hopefully a local consensus, one way or the other. Good luck - the WOLF  child  01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There is one very good reason why the numbers appear in long-hand: simply because numerical operations (such as inflation and then rounding) are enacted on the data and return the figures which can then be sorted in a table. If you click the edit button and have a look at the actual code you will see it is not as simple as just typing in $80 million or something like that. I also disagree with the IP that the format here is violating some guideline or consensus. MOS:LARGENUM only instructs editors to avoid unnecessary precision; it does not insist on a presentation format for the precision. In fact, LARGENUM even stipulates that "The reader may be assumed to interpret large round numbers (100,000 troops) as approximations." This is a non-issue as far as I am concerned: the precision in the article satisfies the guideline and the presentation facilitates the implementation. However, I do agree with the general principle that short-hand looks better aesthetically and if there is a way to implement that without compromising the numerical operations at the heart of the article then I am quite open to that. Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that between here and on their talk page, we've established that the whole "consensus" and "guideline says" business was an error and should be considered a non-issue. The only thing we really need to determine here is if there is a preference for short form over the current long form numbers (by new, local consensus) and if the templates will work with short formats if it goes that way. Cheers - the WOLF  child  01:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Betty. That's a good reason for this article, always insighful.
 * As I said earlier I agree with rounding as it makes for better prose but I never understood why people insisted on rounding in Infoboxes and tables or other data sources. If I'd known then I'd have similarly argued for keeping (supposedly) precise gross figures in Infoboxes on the same basis as you are recommending now. The consensus was decided and that seems irrelevant here though, perhaps on multiple levels.
 * OK then so is anyone actively disagreeing that the table wouldn't be good without all those extra zeroes? (Besides the data requirement already stated by Betty Logan?) I thought it was inconsistent with the consensus but I also think it is inelegant, and would be better if presented in shorthand as this article is fundamentally an overview.
 * Maybe I'm paranoid because of so many knee jerk reverts but when the easiest laziest move is to always delete or revert, but making changes is hard (even if you think the guidelines are with you), it makes more sense to start a discussion if you are even slightly unsure about a change.
 * Feel free to refer to me as "109" or similar for short if you like, I'm usually in that range, it is real enough. I appreciate the talkback notifications but I'll check most days. -- 109.79.181.42 (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could recreate the table, or a part of it, in the format you'd like it to be. I'm not sure which one I would prefer, but there is no need to change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick note about that. If "109" wants to attempt "re-create" any part of the table, I would strongly urge them to not experiment with the table in the article, but instead use the WP:SANDBOX. fyi - the WOLF  child  14:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. I think recreate implies some duplication. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And as Betty stated, there are formulas being calculated in the table using formatnum and Inflation templates, so it's not going to be simple to edit. There is a way to get around that, but it will be a bit tricky to do and I'd prefer not mess with it unless the consensus here is to make a change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Revisit
 * Some time has passed since this discussion about expressing the precision of the table in the same precision as the sources. Budgets reported by the press, an entertainment web site, or a film site like IMDb only provide estimates and the estimates are in millions.  I am unclear as to why there is no consensus here to list movies by millions instead of dollars.  The six 0's are extraneous and an awkward presentation form.  Please refer to the page that lead me here for an example List_of_most_expensive_films.  Note that this page also adjusts for inflation without issue. What comments or arguments are there against moving forward and expressing budget and other monetary column values in the precision of millions? Smcnair (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no difference in precision between $100,000,000 and $100 million, they just use different formatting. I actually prefer the layout at List of most expensive films to be honest, and I don't think anybody above has expressed an objection to the proposal. However, because there is inflation involved it is not as straightforward as just removing the extraneous zeros. It can be done but there is a bit of work involved. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Producing Companies, Distributors, Directors, Main Actors
Could this info (four more columns) be added for each movie? It would certainly give an even better (more detailed) overview (to see which of these have had most flops). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need or value in adding "production companies, distributors, directors and main actors" to this table. They aren't key components in determining a film's profit or loss at the box office. As this article and the list is about box office losses, the focus should be on the numbers. Adding those columns would only serve to clutter the table with off-topic, distracting information that can be easily found by following the link to the film's article. (imho) - the WOLF  child  04:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the production company. It makes sense to know who made these particular films. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. It wouldn't lend to the readers understanding of why a particular film lost so much money, that it is listed among the "biggest ... bombs", nor would it have any affect ont the ranking of the films. It's really just needless trivia as far as this list is concerned. Listing the production companies would only serve to clutter the table, especially with films that had multiple prediction companies. Again, this is just my opinion, others may differ. - the WOLF  child  05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because they are responsible for the loss. I would only support adding a column like that if the rest of the table was cleaned up though (and only the main production company). It's cluttered already. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There isn't always a straight correlation between how much a film loses and how much the production company loses. For example, the Harry Potter films were produced by Heyday Films but were financed by Warner. Working Title has a financing deal with Universal. Avatar was produced by James Cameron's own production company but was funded by Fox and some equity companies. Valerian was pre-sold on a territory basis so the production company didn't lose anything, but local distributors all lost varying degrees of investment. In other words giving the complexities of film finance it is not immediately clear who lost the money, and how that breaks down. I agree with Wolfchild, in that the proposed extra columns are very secondary to the topic of the article and the table is already large in its existing form. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean who actually incurs the loss, since clearly that is more complicated. I'm saying the production company is essentially the creator of the film, largely responsible for its performance, like including the authors in a list of books. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Even that can be debated, for arguably many would say it's the director that helms the film and is largely responsible for the quality of the final product (especially those who involve themselves heavily with the editing) and therefore the films success or lack thereof (eg: Solo). Beyond that, if one was to research such a thing as reasons why good films failed at the box office, they would more likely find a myriad of different reasons, as opposed to the blame being universally laid at the feet of the (main) production company. But again, this article isn't about "why" a film bombed or "who" is to blame. It's just a list "what" films bombed the most. The "who"s and "why"s are needless trivia here. (And that's not even taking into account the economy of space on the table). - the WOLF  child  23:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm saying only if space were made available, and I would only support the addition of the production company. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any ambiguity to your position. I was just stating my disagreement with it and my reasons why. Cheers - the WOLF  child  00:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

List of biggest box-office bombs → List of biggest box office bombs – Per List of biggest box-office bombs Box office bomb. Unreal7 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's comments during the most recent RM (see ). Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Amakuru's comments as well; see the main one here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose – In complement of Amakuru's comments, the general English rule alluded to can be seen in examples listed here and here. The compound noun "box office" can exist fine on its own when referred to in the singular form, but when used as an attributive noun that modifies another noun, such as "box-office flop" or "box-office bomb", it needs the hyphen. The dictionary examples back this up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This must be only me as you've all seemed to understand this, but could you explain the request rational? What does "Per List of biggest box-office bombs" mean? --Gonnym (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the nomination rationale either, but regardless I think the title is correct English in its current form. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed too but assumed there was another article-title example (see what I did there?!) that the nominator intended to share., which article did you mean? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he has confused the article with Box office bomb? Betty Logan (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's it. But that article is wrongly named itself. The solution would be to rename it to Box-office bomb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Amakuru et al. - wolf  19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List size
- Just noticed today that the list is up to 110 entries (going by the "ref" column). I seem to recall at some point deciding to keep the list at a "soft 100", (as noted in the locked section at the top of this page), though skimming through the archives here, I don't seem to see the discussion that resulted in that decision (but could've missed it). Anyhow... any thoughts on trimming the main list and moving some entries to the archive list at the top of this page? Just curious. Cheers - wolf  14:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It currently exceeds 100 because some of the losses are ranges. For example, if Solo lost 50 mil it's not in the top 100 (meaning another film is), but if it lost 80 mil it is (pushing another film out). Looking at the list the only film that we can categorically say is not in the top 100 is Rush Hour 3. The upshot is that every film with an upper-bound loss of $71 million or more could be in the top 100. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder... wdym "if Solo lost 50 mil"? Since in the table the figures are $250M+ bugdet and $392M gross. Doesn't that mean the guesstimated prediction of flopping didn't turn out to be true? Likewise for Alexander, Alice Through the Looking Glass, Allied, The BFG, Blade Runner 2049, Cowboys & Aliens, Ender's Game, Fantastic Four, etc... -- 79.115.171.168 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is explained in the second paragraph of the lead. In addition to the budget there is typically a huge marketing spend, and the distributor doesn't collect all the box-office (the exhibitor keeps a percentage). A typical rule of thumb is that a film has to gross twice its budget before it gets into "break even" territory. Taking Solo as an example, say it cost $250 million and Disney spent at least another $100 promoting it that's an overall cost of $350 million, and if it returned half its box-office to Disney (~$200 million) that would still leave it with a $150 million deficit. Home video revenue and TV rights will offset some of that loss, hence why the loss projections are $50–80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Pixels?
Could someone explain why is this movie on the list?

Because It was a Box Office Bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.156.162 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Justice League
An editor has removed this several times without offering an adequate explanation. Most of the figures in this article are estimates based on projected earnings, and while some of them may prove to be inaccurate in the long term it is not up to editors to cherry-pick their own figures. The article takes this into account and provides a safe range of $50–100 million. The editor's own figure of $60 million may well be accurate, which incidentally falls into the range offered in the article. The editor has offered no evidence that the losses incurred by the film fall into the lower end of the range so there is no basis for removing the film. If newer sources come to light with fresh data then the situation can be reviewed then. Betty Logan (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Marwen
I’ve not edited on this page before so I’ll bring this here first for inputs sake. It’s been projected that the new release Welcome to Marwen is gonna lose 50 plus million dollars. Is this something we wait to add until it’s completed it’s theatrical run or can it be added in and adjusted along the way? Rusted AutoParts 22:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Box-office projections are usually accurate after the opening weekend so they can be added straight away and then revised down the line if necessary. However, at $50 million the projected loss doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion. A film has to be potentially in the top 100 bombs to be added to the list which means a film needs to potentially lose $70 million to be added. It might be worth adding it to the above where a list of "near misses" are retained in case we have to add some back to the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve been trying to add it to the trimmed list but I feel like I’ll mess the table up. Also I see that most of them are being traced back to a Filmsite.org, and i don’t know if Marwen is catalogued there as amongst its flops. So I’ll let someone with experience on this page add it. Rusted AutoParts  23:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldboy
Would Oldboy qualify for the trimmed list by any chance? Grossed 4.8 million on a 30 million dollar budget Rusted AutoParts  07:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. It has a very low ROI but it wasn't an expensive film. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Robin Hood (2018)
$80-130M Loss Add to table pleeezzz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.231.98 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If it lost that amount then it would be eligible for inclusion but we need a source first. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/better-movies-risky-bets-how-2018-box-office-hit-a-record-1173028 suggests it would lose $100M if it made ~$75M (it ended up making slightly more than that). Not sure how reliable the source is. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The Hollywood Reporter is fairly reliable for this sort of stuff so I will add Robin Hood in later this evening. I am bit too busy right this minute. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robinhood2018.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.231.44 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say anything about it losing $80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

✅

The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
Would The LEGO Movie 2 qualify for the list? Since it has yet to meet the 200 million break even point, and websites have already declared it a flop. (212.219.220.159 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC))

no budget $99M gross as of 17/4/19 $171M  and has not open in servel countrys inculde japan and chania so it should get pass also pelase give us those wevsites Fanoflionking

Mary Poppins Returns
Mary Poppins Returns should be considered a box-office bomb as well. It made about the same amount as The Good Dinosaur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattNor91 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mary Poppins Returns has not only grossed more than The Good Dinosaur it cost $70 million less, so I doubt very much it would qualify for this list. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it breaks even. Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

the loss column is not explained
The math explanation seems to say that you need to make twice your budget to break even, which implies they get half of every dollar made, yet none of these loss totals take that into account. If you bring in 99 million then with a 50 million budget and get half, you've lost 500k not a million. Additionally some of the loss totals seem to be a direct subtraction of earnings from budget. I propose the entire list is guesswork unless it is directly referenced numbers from the producer.
 * May I suggest you read the introduction, which covers most of the issues you raise. If a film has large marketing expenditures or significant ancillary earnings (which is most Hollywood films these days) then the "double the budget" rule breaks down. As for the figures themselves they come directly from the sources (which are all provided) and it is not always clear how they are arrived at. This is especially true of those entries that have contradictory loss figures. Ultimately a film will have many different expenditures and revenue streams so there is no single "catch all" methodology that can be applied. Deadline Hollywood provides a full breakdown of its figures if you are interested in how they calculated the losses. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the officially recognized production budgets and box office grosses relevant?
It would be OR to extrapolate that this or that film was a flop based on these figures, but that's not technically what we are doing here. We have sourced loss estimates that bear no clear relationship to the budget and gross profit figures, and often appear to the naked eye to completely contradict them. (Look at the Justice League figures for example. Marketing, and the concepts of normal profit and return on investment, make this all the messier, since the Forbes source we cite for Justice League doesn't actually say the film made a "loss" of the stated amount as we seem to be defining "loss".) Since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to "fix" this article with all the exact figures, should we just remove the budget and gross figures? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all the losses are extrapolated because films keep earning money through their secondary markets. The gross and budget columns are inherited from the old version of the page from when it was full of OR, and they were necessary to the calculation. Obviously they are not neccessary now because all the loss figures are sourced. I guess some editors may like them because they help to provide a sense of scale, but if you are asking if they are necessary data on this page then the answer is no. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More exhaustive list
The website "Bomb Report" has a highly comprehensive list of movies that bombed from 1997 onwards. The site be used as the basis for a more comprehensive and exhaustive list of box office bombs (www.bombreport.com)

More movies to the list
Missing Link, UglyDolls and Dark Phoenix need to be at the list too. It seems Dark Phoenix lose approximately 100 million USD to 140 million USD. And there is not in list Dark Phoenix in Listed of Box Office Bombs despite loses too much.

And, amongst of 2019 bombed movies are below 100 million USD budget despite most of lost money is unknown.

For more list, check at www.bombreport.com

Accidental revert
I have no memory of making |this revert - must have been a rollback misclick on my watchlist. Apologies. Popcornduff (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's ok, these things happen. I just figured you hadn't looked over the edit in detail and my edit summary was probably not detailed enough anyway because I removed some bad sources as well as unsourced changes. Unfortunately Bombreport seems to get turn up here a lot, and its basically just somebody's hobby site. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal
How does this look? MightyArms (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you proposing apart from a full release date? I think a full release date is completely unnecessary because why would a reader care if the film came out on October 16, 1998? If somebody wants to know the precise date a film came out they would look up the film article. This article is about box-office loss. For that purpose it obviously matters if a film came out in 1967, 1989 or 2008 to give a sense of scale, but the day and month is superfluous. Betty Logan (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)