Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Good Dinosaur

Resolved

Should The Good Dinosaur count as a box office failure? The film cost $200 million to make, but had to make $400 million to break even. As of now, it just stands at $260 million, so that pretty much makes it count as a bomb. WakeFan91 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Good Dinosaur still has some major releases in the pipeline, so should not be added to the chart until the roll-out is completed. Furthermore, it is very unlikely to make the cut: it has grossed $268 million, so using the formula in the chart that would come to $134 million of revenue; subtract that from $200 million and the loss stands at $66 million. If it grosses another $6 million (which is likely at this point even without the upcoming releases) it won't be eligible anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice that someone added The Good Dinosaur to the list. Why? I thought that by the numbers, the film was not eligible. On top of that, the film is still playing internationally, and has not been released in Japan yet (March 12). What's up? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

..Oh, I guess there was a source for it. But it still seems too early. The film's revenue is still in-coming. The cited source was published a while back. It may not turn out to be relevant in the end. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. Perhaps we should consider, as a policy, not adding any films until they've finished they're theatrical run. There is no urgency to add any film and there is no harm in waiting to add any either. It would look silly if we had to remove a film after adding it. @Betty Logan: - any thoughts on this? - ^theWOLFchild 03:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

..I also want to add, I have read that THR article, and it reads like an opinion piece. I'm not sure how accurate it is (or will be) at this point. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

All loss assessments are opinion pieces i.e. pretty much every loss in this article is attributed to educated guesswork and projections. The lead makes it clear that the figures are generally "rough estimates at best" since the studios obviously aren't going to turn over their acounts to the media. The Hollywood Reporter article was published at the end of January when it was coming to the end of its run (excpet for Japan) and gives a basis for its assessment: it had similar costs to Rise of the Guardians and has done similar business, and that resulted in an $87 million writedown for Dreamworks, so THR analysis seems reasonable to me. If The Good Dinosaur turns out to be a hit in Japan and the overall box office ends up around $400 million so that it can no longer be reasonably compared to Rise of the Guardians then I agee it should probably come off the list, but as it stands The Good Dinosaur has currently made $7 million more than Rise of the Guardians and cost at least $30 million more so the films still look comparable to me. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Betty, The Good Dinosaur aside, what are your thoughts on my comment above, about not listing films until after their theatrical run? - ^theWOLFchild 14:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Waiting until a film completed its run made sense when we were doing the calcuations ourselves because that was what we were basing the calculations on, but now the projections also take into account future earnings from home video and TV as well, so in many cases films aren't even halfway through their lifecyle once they finish their theatrical release, so in that sense waiting until it closes is somewhat arbitrary. For instance, only $79.5 million of the Sahara's earnings of its $202.9 million earnings projected over ten years came from the box office. Many studios also take writedowns on their pictures in the same financial quarter that the film is released, which invariably means they are still playing, so I don't think waiting until the film closes is always practical if the information is released before that happens, or always necessary if it takes into account future earnings from home video and TV as well (since it is still a projection). I think the information has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis: if the studio takes a writedown while the film is playing then that is basically how much money the film has lost as far as the studio is concerned. In the case of something like what the Hollywood Reporter has done with The Good DInosaur, they have basically made a "causal" projection by basing its projected losses on its cost and predicted final box office. In that regard I suppose I don't really object to pulling the film and seeing how Japan pans out, but if THR's figures ultimately end up in the right ballpark I don't see a valid reason for ommitting either. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. It sounds like once a reliable source indicates a projected loss, (by way of writedown, etc.) then that is the threshold for inclusion. That was my point, basically setting a baseline going forward. We're likely to have others adding various films for various reasons, some appropriate and some not. Now we have something to refer to. (I'm sure no one here at this time has an issue with this.) Thanks for the reply. - ^theWOLFchild 16:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

List of box office bombs

Resolved

"look at the page title, then go to the talk page" And? There are over 40 sections, what exactly are you referring to? Some specifics would be appreciated. Thanks Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: - I was referring to the page title. There's only one of those... - ^theWOLFchild 07:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The page title does not explain why the edit was undone. Could you please explain? Otherwise I have no idea what the issue is. Also, on your talk page it says "If I made a comment on your talk page, or replied to you on an article talk page - Please reply there, not here" Just making the observation that you did not make a comment on my talk page or replied on an article talk page, so I have no idea where else (besides your talk page) that I should have bought up the issue. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A) Removing the word "bomb" due to a "neutrality" issue when the article's title is "List of box office bombs" seems... needless, no? Besides, "bomb" isn't meant as an insult, it's standard term used across the film and media industries, supported by countless reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by the sources. The change was simply unnecessary.

B) I said "go to the talk page", not my talk page. When discussing article content, it's more appropriate to discuss it on the article's talk page. Yet, you have since felt the need to raise the issue at yet another user's talk, an uninvolved user at that. If you wanted her opinion on this, you could have simply pinged her here (you obviously know how to do that). Wiki-policy says it's best to keep discussions centralized. Please keep this is mind before you post about this to anymore user talk pages. - ^theWOLFchild 08:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Wolfchild makes a valid point: "bomb" isn't so much a point of view as it is the standard nomenclature. There is also a subtle distinction between a box office loss and a bomb: if a film costs $100 million and loses $2 million it has lost money, but that's not the type of film we cover here. We are tallying films which have lost a lot of money. When we are describing something that is a huge failure then any term we use to convey that will be POV to an extent, and there seems to be a lack of alternatives. Being neutral doesn't necessarily mean making things sound less bad than they are (otherwise the Hitler article would be in real trouble) but rather fairly representing the negative stuff that has bee published. The current title was determined at an AfD discussion, but if the terminology is going to be removed on the grounds of not being neutral the article should be renamed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

A). Fair enough. You could have just said that in the first place.

The only thing you said was "look at the page title, then go to the talk page" That is pretty vague, and explains nothing (and it is rather snarky). And then when I questioned that, all you said was "I was referring to the page title. There's only one of those..." Again, that explains nothing.

B). I had no choice. When the second thing you said still didn't explain anything, I figured that I should ask someone else to help here (who is very active in this talk page) before this turned into a never-ending enigma. I did not just simply ping her, because I wanted to explain the context. (And I had no intention of posting this to any other user's talk page after her.) I am honestly sorry that I bothered you so much, but this could have all be avoided if you had just explained yourself in the first place. And Betty Logan; thank you for your time on this matter. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You thought it was "vague". I thought it was obvious. You think my comments are "snarky". I think yours are whiney. My edit summary should have been sufficient enough for you. "Look at the page title". It's pretty self-explanatory. How else could it contain the word "bomb" unless it was appropriate and well supported. You could've seen that for yourself. There are plenty of reliable sources in the article and Wikipedia runs on sources. I also said "go to the talk page", again pretty self-explanatory. If you need more clarification, then simply ask on the article's talk page... like the way it's been done since Wikipedia started. But instead, you post on my user talk page, then another user's talk page, spreading the discussion everywhere but where it's supposed to be. Why not just post here in the first place, asking "can you explain your revert please?" Would that be so difficult? It would've made sense, no? Anyway... this appears to be resolved now. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 01:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I do not appreciate your comments about me. They are out of line, and it is uncalled for. Calling me 'whiny' is derisive and insulting. I never insulted you. Like I said before, I'm sorry that I bothered you, I meant it. Betty Logan was much more polite, which is what I have come to expect from administrators on Wikipedia. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't appreciate being called "snarky" when I was simply being direct. So, yeah... you did insult me. I but I'm certainly over it, when are you going to get over it? There are many more worthwhile things we could be spending time on as opposed to this. Like I said, this is resolved, so let's move on. (btw - Betty isn't an admin, but she is a very hard working editor. As for admins... well, there's all types.) Have. a. nice. day. - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I did not mean it as an insult. I called your comment snarky, not you. And sometimes direct comments can sound snarky. Especially over the Internet. That is all. I certainly hope that there are no hard feelings and that we can move on. If you look at my contribution history, you will see that I am not a troublemaker. And I am certainly over it at this point now that I have explained myself. This is the last I will comment here. Have a good day. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That goes two ways. I didn't call you whiney, just your comments. I definitely have no hard feelings, like you said... this is the internet. Happy editing. (p.s. - have a quick look at WP:INDENT. Thanks) - ^theWOLFchild 05:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Biggest Box office bombs adjusted for Inflation

Resolved

I noticed something; in the "Biggest Box office bombs adjusted for Inflation" section, there is the section title, and then the same title right over the chart. Seems a little redundant? Perhaps the chart title can be removed since the section title says it all? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Be BOLD! - ^theWOLFchild 05:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out "redundnant" table titles at an FL review once, but it is basically an ACCESS issue for screenreaders. All tables should have titles, even if the section heading says the same thing. I guess the table titles could be altered slightly i.e. "Box office bombs ranked by adjusted loss" or something along those lines to make them less...redundnant. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Could always put "List of..." in front of one of them. - ^theWOLFchild 12:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Article recommended for deletion by Websof

Resolved

Just to let everyone know, that this page was (wrongfully imo) added to Afd (without a tag). link

Regards, -- Hybris1984 (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as speedy keep for the reasons cited there. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Websof has been indef'd. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 05:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Pixels

Resolved

Would someone mind explaining why Pixels is on this list? Unless I'm missing something, $244m over 88 is hardly a bomb. Plus, it's lacking a viable source as the McClintock article makes no mention of the film. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I copied over the wrong reference. The correct source is now in the article but here it is for your convenience: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/summer-box-office-flops-tomorrowland-820498. I agree that number looks slightly off, but it appears the marketing for Pixels was incredibly high: the budget along with the domestic marketing came to $145 million (see [1]), so once you factor in the international marketing the total cost of the film was probably in the $200 million range and the studio only gets roughly half the box office as a rule (they generally split the gross with the theaters). I do agree though that the estimate is higher than what I would have guessed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Not that I had an issue with Sandler's latest dreck making the list to begin with, mind. :') sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

List maintenance

Resolved

With Disney reporting that it expects to lose $75 million on The Finest Hours, there are now 102 entries on the list, which means that technically we should remove the two Demi Moore turkeys (The Scarlett Letter and Nothing But Trouble) to keep the list at 100 films. However, I think it is best to keep them on the list temporarily until #The Good Dinosaur is resolved, which will probably be after that film's Japanese release. I think this may be good practice for the list i.e. only cull entries once playing films on the list have closed. This was similar to the practice on the old list: if we had two highlighted films on the list, then the list was 52 entries long (in case the playing films dropped off). This will ensure that we don't cull anything prematurely. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That would certainly work. Or we could just hold off adding films until they've finished their run. That way, the list will always remain at an even 100, and we can avoid future issues, like with The Good Dinosaur, as well as disputes and confusion over any films status that result in constant edits removing the colored background, like which has been occurring on the List of highest-grossing films. But either way is fine with me. - ^theWOLFchild 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt

Resolved

• We should probably keep an eye on Gods of Egypt (film), the first big turkey of 2016. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I "kept an eye on it" in the theatre last weekend. Ugh... what a gawd-awful movie. I was in a huge IMAX theatre on it's opening Saturday night and there was less than a dozen of us in the audience in total. I can see it getting added to this table for sure. - ^theWOLFchild 13:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Do any sources exist yet for Gods of Egypt's losses? Not that it matters, but using the old formula puts it at a loss of $-85,661,978. There are still markets it has yet to open in, but even so it's not likely to break even.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's on our radar (see #Other flops with unknown losses) but we haven't come by hard numbers as yet. Betty Logan (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it'll be on the list for sure. It's awful, just awful. I still have nightmares over the 12 bucks I blew on that crapfest. I wake up in a cold sweat and... um, I digress. Anyways... this movie will bomb. Hard. - ^theWOLFchild 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not matter the quality of the film (it is really bad), i have been following it since the start and i just repost this to help you when you estimate the losses. Tax rebates covered 46 percent of the budget and 30 million were spend on marketing. Unless Lionsgate makes an announcement of more losses this doesn't make the list. It lost 10 mil on USA and the real price they sold it to abroad markets is 65,6 mil, so far it made 81,5 mil, the rights were sold individually and we can't know how much each one spended on marketing, but nevertheless it can't reach 60 mil+ losses to enter the list.Source http://www.thewrap.com/gods-of-egypt-on-track-for-15-million-opening-can-it-beat-the-odds-and-launch-a-franchise/ Basickk (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't make the list, it will only be because of the tax rebates. ($65M...? Crazy.) - ^theWOLFchild 01:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it too early to add Gods of Egypt to the list? Fladoodle (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fladoodle: Again, you keep adding films and asking if they should be added, but nothing has changed. It's a 'top 100' list, to get added, right now a film needs to have lost more than $55 million (adjusted), and you need to have a reliable source that supported the numbers. - ^theWOLFchild 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Budget of Gods of Egypt was $140 million. It made $140,746,032 worldwide. If you use the formula "total worldwide gross divided by 2 minus production budget", you'll find that it lost $69,626,984.

Fladoodle (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We have scrapped the "formula" system due to complaints it constituted WP:Original research (see #The problem with original research. All entries must now have a source explicitly saying how much money the film lost, or is expected to lose. If Gods of Egypt has indeed lost $70 million then I am sure it will be reported at some point. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Numbers has confirmed losses of $86 million for this turkey so I've added it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

animated it

Resolved

Dose any want help with Draft:List of animated box office bombs14:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Misconduct

Resolved

Misconduct (film) had an $11 million budget and earned $938,744 at the box office. Its opening weekend in the UK earned just £97.[2] Would this qualify for the list? Although in absolute dollar terms it's small, proportionally the loss is mugh higher than some on the list. 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not a list about ROI, it is about absolute loss. Paranormal Activity is the most profitable film ever made and we don't add that to the List of highest-grossing films on the basis it didn't make enough to qualify for the list. This has been discussed before, so I will repeat what I said them: movie profitability is a notable topic but it is not the same topic as this one. Losing $11 million on a film that cost $11 million is simply not a bomb on the scale that losing $100 million on a film that cost $200 million is. If you want to document it then you should create a new article for it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the list, it seems there are quite a few films which don't technically qualify as Box Office Bombs.

As far as I know, a Box Office Bomb is a film where the Gross is lower than the Production budget. Unless there is a different, more complicated way of calculating it, mathematically several films on the list don't count as huge losses.

Examples include: The Good Dinosaur ($175m-200m Budget, $313m gross), Rise of the Guardians ($145m budget, $306m gross) and Battleship ($209m budget, $303 Gross).

In addition, several films which were financial disasters have been removed from the list, notably Can't Stop The Music (which only grossed 10% of its production budget). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.128.117 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Mathematically erroneous entries

Resolved

Looking at the list, it seems there are quite a few films which don't technically qualify as Box Office Bombs.

As far as I know, a Box Office Bomb is a film where the Gross is lower than the Production budget. Unless there is a different, more complicated way of calculating it, mathematically several films on the list don't count as huge losses.

Examples include: The Good Dinosaur ($175m-200m Budget, $313m gross), Rise of the Guardians ($145m budget, $306m gross) and Battleship ($209m budget, $303 Gross).

In addition, several films which were financial disasters have been removed from the list, notably Can't Stop The Music (which only grossed 10% of its production budget). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.128.117 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A box office bomb is simply a film that loses a lot of money. Dreamworks declared an $87 million writedown for Rise of the Guardians and they are better placed than Wikipedia editors to know which of their films made and lost money. As for Can't Stop The Music, it does not meet the criteria in that it is not among the top 100 money losers. As explained in the section directly above this one, if a $1 million film only earns $1 that doesn't make it a bigger flop than a film that cost $100 million and made back $50 million. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

They're also inherently biased and production companies have a standing history of underreporting profits in the interest of minimizing profit-sharing. As such, a studio source can almost never actually be reliable. Cougar Draven (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You are talking about Hollywood accounting and about how profit is hidden. Writedowns are a different thing altogether: they use losses on one property to offset tax liabilities on another. Writedowns are generally accurate because the studio has no incentive to hide a loss when it is using it to offset other liabilities. Over-reporting a loss would be dangerous too because that would amount to tax evasion. I'm not saying it never happens, but put it this way: Warner's accounts for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire reported a loss, but if they really did lose money on it why didn't they file a writedown to offset tax liabilities on their other properties? Clue: it didn't make a loss. When John Carter tanked Disney didn't miss the opportunity to file a writedown on it and offset the profits on some of their other assets. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ghostbustes 2016

Resolved

Note that the Hollywood Reporter is basing their numbers on the assumption that the end total box office is around 230 million. We really have no clue where it will end up. But I strongly suspect it won't go that high. The studio might just be trying to spin this so that it is less of a loss. There's some sources saying that the loss might end up being 100 million or more.

http://ihorror.com/ghostbusters-sequel-dead-reboot-facing-100m-loss/amp/

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, the Hollywood Reporter says the losses will be "$70 million plus" which seems to be a conservative approximation at this stage. If the figure is revised upwards at a later stage (which I agree is likely) the figure can be revised then. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Expand the list:

Resolved

There have been more box office bombs after 2000 than later, whit a whopping 10 of them released in 2015 alone. It makes the list slant heavily towards the recent. I think the list should thus be expanded to maybe 150 or 200 so that it can be more representitive of the history of film making. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason the list is skewed towards recent releases is because the data is easier to track down. If the list is expanded that won't necessarily address bias towards modern releases. It won't help us find out how much films like Raise the Titanic, Howard the Duck and Pirates lost. Betty Logan (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Pete's Dragon

Resolved

Was it too soon for Bloomberg to determine whether or not Pete's Dragon would lose that much money? It still has many international territories where it hasn't opened yet. These openings are from September 13 through December 24.[3] This article from Forbes also says it's fate as bomb has yet to be determined.

References

I don't think you can put too much stock in what a Forbes contributor says—they rent web space and can write what they want. Obviously, it's not a foregone conclusion it will lose money, nor would it be once it finishes playing in theaters because films continue earning ad infinitum through the home video market and TV, but whether it's a reasonable projection depends upon the methodology they use. Since most Hollywood films these days earn on average one-half to two-thirds of their revenues overseas, and roughly a similar amount from the secondary markets I imagine it's possible to come up with a reasonable projection at this stage of its run in regards to how much it will earn. If the estimate finishes too far off then The Numbers will no doubt revise their projection at some point and we can update the table if that turns out to be the case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is too early for Pete's Dragon, since domestically, it reached above it's production budget and it's international release dates are scattered. I think we should wait on that movie for now. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that a film has to gross considerably more than its production budget domestically don't you for it to break even? Besides, it is played out domestically now and has opened in most of its territories so it looks like a reasonable projection to me at this stage of its run. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know it grossed over $5 million above production budget domestically and around almost over $30 million above worldwide. I just don't see that this movie isn't a box office bomb as it's listed on here. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at how much it's made I honestly don't see how it can be described as anything other than bomb! Disney will be lucky to recoup just the budget, nevermind the marketing costs. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I know. I saw that movie and I just don't see it as a bomb from it's numbers. I would actually rather recoup just the budget, not the marketing cost. Marketing costs don't mean much, just the production budget. The 2016 remake of Ben-Hur is a box office bomb since it didn't reach budget domestically and likely won't worldwide, but Pete's Dragon has reached production budget domestically and has risen a reasonable amount above budget. That's why marketing costs shouldn't be considered an box office issue with it's performance. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What we think it should recoup is irrelevant. Ultimately Wikipedia adopts a sourced based approach and you can't just cherry-pick the information the information you agree with and omit the information you disagree with. If the figures are revised at a later point then the article will be updated then. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Anousha Sakoui's Article

Resolved

While I do believe that this Bloomberg article is largely accurate in terms of reporting, it seems like a pretty big stretch to label some of the movies listed as flops. While it's safe to say that the likes of The BFG, Ghostbusters, and Ben-Hur are financial duds, Pete's Dragon, War Dogs, and Kubo & The Two Strings are low-budget enough that it sounds like an overstatement to call them massive flops (not to mention that they still have to release in a couple of key markets). Furthermore, Star Trek Beyond is doing well in China right now, and it still has yet to release in Japan after that, making the estimated $350M break-even point that it needs to reach something that should be attainable. 2605:6001:E7D1:6C00:FC0C:9D96:DE67:1C10 (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that Star Trek needs $350 million to "break-even"; that seems rather arbitrary to me. Sony stated that Ghostbusters (which cost $144 million) needs $300 million to break even and Village Roadshow said that the $160 million budgeted Godzilla needed to gross $380 million to break even, and Star Trek cost substantially more than those films. In fact going by those figures Star Trek would need to gross $380-430 million. Films like The Good Dinosaur, Battleship and Rise of the Guardians all grossed over $300 million on budgets of $150-200 million and all lost around $50-100 million so Star Trek's projected loss seems to be in line with those films. Most of these films are near the end of their runs and the analysis most likely accounted for that since it states that the figures "projects revenue for movies all the way through their release on commercial TV". For example, the last Star Trek film grossed $10 million in Japan so the analysis probably assumed the new film will perform likewise. If other sources come along with different estimates then the amounts will be incorporated into the article, but ultimately it's not our place to cherry-pick figures we agree with and disregard those we disagree with. Betty Logan (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Beyond specifically, the Sakoui article was posted the day before it released in Chinese cinemas. It posted roughly a third of its profit in that market alone. More damning, Beyond doesn't actually appear in the article at all, nor does it appear in the McClintock article from late December. As such, it shouldn't be on the list at all, as it isn't properly sourced. Cougar Draven (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Legend of Tarzan

Resolved

Does The Legend of Tarzan qualify as a bomb? According to the article, the film needs to gross at least $400 million, considering its $180 million budget. The film's revenue currently stands at $355 million and it seems unlikely that it could still reach $400 million. 47.152.93.124 (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the figures it is highly likely it will lose money (it will be lucky to recoup just its budget nevermind its marketing costs) but at the moment we have no figures for it. I suppose if Warner only spent 100 mil or so on marketing and they pre-sell the TV rights (at ~10% of the box-office) it might just miss the threshold (~57 mil) for this list. At the moment I would say it's a borderline bomb, so we'll have to just keep our eyes open for any sources that can put a number on it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Expend

Resolved

Dose any one mind helping expand List of animated box office bombs ?82.38.157.176 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Other flops with unknown losses

FYI

 – This is the remainder of a thread (same title) that was retained on the main talk page after archiving

Whether or not these get added, and even though you clearly done an extensive search for entries here, the fact remains there could be other films that were a significant financial loss. Perhaps add a note along with the table that the list is not exhaustive? Just a suggestion. - ^theWOLFchild 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Or we can just set a hard soft cap of approx 100 and leave it at that... - ^theWOLFchild 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought about that but it won't always work. For example, if you have bunch of films which lost the same amount then it would not get it to exactly 100 i.e. it could be 101 films if the two bottom films are on the same amount. Also, in the caase of films where there are different estimates, one estimate may put them in the top 100 and another may put it outside the top 100. So I think we should probably set the criteria to films which could potentially be in the top 100. That will keep the list to roughly 100 films wich would be a good working number I think. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good - ^theWOLFchild 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Actually, here's a thought; why not have it as the 'top 100 losses', instead of films? That way it won't matter if two or more films have the same loss or if different sources list different amounts for the same films (just go by the source that lists the higher loss). There may be more than 100 films, but there would only be 100 values. It also solves the issue as to what should be the low end of the spectrum for inclusion. - ^theWOLFchild 00:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

White House Down

What about White House Down? Sony said it lost it's quarterly money due to it's box office flop as you can see it here. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but that figure accounts for the whole of the quarter for the whole of Sony, not just for White House Down. Maybe it should be on the list, or maybe it didn't lose quite enough to make the cut, but there is no way to determine that without an actual figure for the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe true. From what I know, it only reached $72 million in the U.S. against a $150 million budget. Worldwide box office result, it has $205 million. But it is still below box office expectations. The actual figure is a question though for sure. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't seem to find any sources that mention specific numbers for White House Down's losses. (Does "pajiba.com" count?) - ^theWOLFchild 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a WP:Reliable source to me, but even if we regard it as one for the sake of argument WHD with a 45 mil loss wouldn't penetrate our current list. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I didn't think it would be RS. If that turned out to be b.o. loss, it wouldn't be enough for the list. And lastly, if we can't find a source that specifies some actual numbers, we can't add it anyway. - ^theWOLFchild 21:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's likely true on all that. But maybe we should find out how much it lost from any other source we can find if possible. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. I hunted around and I I'm sure others have as well. If you want to try an find an RS with a specific number, by all means go right ahead. But if it turns out be $45M, Betty has said that would be too low to get on the list. - ^theWOLFchild 04:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's true if I can't find any source other than the one that says $45 Million in losses. Either way, the film bombed for sure. By how much in a reliable source, we can't tell. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Movies that (maybe) should be added to the list

• Son of the Mask
• Inherent Vice
• A Most Violent Year
• Mortdecai
• Unfinished Business
• Child 44
• Self/less
• American Ultra
• Steve Jobs
• Our Brand Is Crisis
• Trumbo
• In the Heart of the Sea

Disregard these movies. Fladoodle (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
• Ratchet and Clank
• Midnight Special
• The Nice Guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamilySing01 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2884:BF00:4404:1476:2CC7:ACC4 (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (Popstar lost less than 40 mil—Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

--Fladoodle (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fladoodle: - Did any of those films lose more than $55 million (adj.)? And do you have sources? - ^theWOLFchild 01:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Son of the Mask just misses the chart. It is among those films we trimmed: #Other_flops_with_unknown_losses. As for the others, well we can add them to list above as "maybes". Betty Logan (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I listed these movies because all of them (not asjusted for inflation) lost at least $10 million, and the one on the list that lost the least amount of money (not adjusted for inflation) lost $10 million. I didn't know that the movie had to have lost more than $55 million after being adjusted for inflation. --Fladoodle (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, the list is a 'top 100' (plus the 2 currently playing), and the lowest loss of the 100 is currently $55M (adj). - ^theWOLFchild 02:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Should any of these movies be added?

• Bandslam
• Imagine That

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladoodle (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, what are their losses? More than $55M? (adj) And, do you have sources? - ^theWOLFchild 06:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Disregard the movies I listed.

Fladoodle (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

On the radar for addition soon?

• Batman v Superman

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.190.51 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As bad and as under-performing as that movie is, it won't be on this list. - ^theWOLFchild 22:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

'Nine Lives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B00C:75F3:2835:A77:57A9:869 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC) UTC)

The BFG  Done

Ben-Hur  Done

Fladoodle (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

BFG and Ben-Hur have been added to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Black Cauldron

Shouldn't The Black Cauldron be in here too? --Funny Gardaland (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Live by Night (film)

Resolved

 – Now added to the article

It lost 75 million dollars. source --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is also reporting Live by Night (film) as a flop, citing the Variety report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38773378 -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The Great Wall

The Hollywood Reporter says that The Great Wall is expected to lose $75 million. http://hollywoodreporter.com/news/what-great-walls-box-office-flop-will-cost-studios-981602 --Fladoodle (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Their estimate is based on it finishing around $320 million so we will make sure it finishes in that range before adding it. Thanks for the heads up. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/what-great-walls-box-office-flop-will-cost-studios-981602

Fladoodle (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we add it now? --Fladoodle (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is safe to add it now. It has finished fairly close to the estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

United Passions

Should United Passions be added to the list? It is infamously known as being one of the biggest films to bomb in the 21st century (Costing arounf 30 million, grossing less than 200 hundred thousand). Inter&anthro (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A film needs to lose $60 million to make it on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Monster Trucks

Monster Trucks (2017) was released early January this year, with an estimated budget of $125 million, with additional costs spent on advertising. Thus far, the movie has barely grossed over 60 million, should that qualify the film for the list? Even Los Angeles Times labeled the film as a bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B029:FC9C:8913:EFA1:4615:FBE6 (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably will qualify for the list at some point but we need a souce to put a figure on the loss. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A Cure For Wellness

A Cure For Wellness cost $40 million to make but bombed, making only $21 million so far, this will likely max out at $25 million. 86.156.105.184 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

Deadline.com says that Ghost in the Shell is expected to lose $60 million. http://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/ Fladoodle (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's based on a global box-office cume of $200 million so let's wait and see how it plays out. It still has some major territories left to open, not least Japan. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

The Hollywood Reporter says that King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is expected to lose $150 million. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/box-office-king-arthur-could-lose-150m-falling-sword-1003638

The Mummy

The Mummy is expected to lose $95 million. http://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-tom-cruise-box-office-bomb-loss-1202114482 http://www.nme.com/news/film/the-mummy-is-expected-to-lose-95-million-at-global-box-office-2090658 Fladoodle (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That estimate is based on it grossing $375 million and it has already grossed $390 million with Japan still to come. It looks almsot certain to finish over $400 million at this point so I question whether the numbers still hold up. Betty Logan (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for The Mummy says that the movie had "a combined production and advertising budget of around $345 million," and it made $407,778,013 worldwide.

Fladoodle (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Deadline they expected a gros of $375 million and $250 million revenue. It ended up doing a bit better than that ($407 million gross), so if you scale the revenue up proportionally that would take it to $270 million. If you subtract that from $345 million that would give a final loss of $75 million. It looks like it is definitely heading for this list but ideally we need a more up to date source to confirm the loss projection. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sinbad Legend of the Seven Seas

Dreamwork's lost $125 million of this film even though it only cost $60 to produce. It most likely didn't reach marketing costs. --Evope (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Blemby (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

The Film Budget is $210M and has made only $88M , Making it one of the biggest box office bombs . http://screenrant.com/dunkirk-opening-weekend-box-office-success-valerian-flops/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/movies/dunkirk-girls-trip-valerian-box-office.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajaCholan (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

One of those sources says it cost $209 million and the other $150 million, so there seems to be a huge disagreement over the budget. And Valerian is still rolling out internationally with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Australia and Italy still to come so I'd say it's a little premature to talk about adding it to the list. It will most likely lose money though so we will keep an eye on it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for the movie say that the budget is $177–210 million.

Fladoodle (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The film was financed in euros so the dollar equivalent will invariably depend on when the conversion was done. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just added the movie with the information available in this moment. Please, check it if possible. The movie has been released worlwide except for the following countries:

South Korea 30 August 2017 Greece 31 August 2017 Italy 21 September 2017

(anonymous)

Please do not add films to the list unless you have a source that specifically quantifies the loss. As explained in the lead calculating loss is more involved than subtracting the gross from the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Cars 3

Although it's still has to open in some countries, Cars 3 has really underperformed. It cost $175,000,000 to make, has only made $300,000,000 as of this week, and is set to be the second lowest-grossing Pixar film. A Bug's Life, the third lowest-grossing Pixar film, had a smaller budget of $120,000,000. Since The Good Dinosaur is counted as a bomb, this one should be counted as well, unless I'm mistaken. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't add it to the list until a source actually publishes a loss estimate and it is unlikely anyone will call it out as a flop until it opens in China. Germany, Italy and Scandinavia are siginificant territories too. Since the threshold for this list is currently$60 million and given the fact it has a slightly smaller budget than The Good Dinosaur I suspect it will just miss the list if it clears $350 million (which I think it will manage to do). Betty Logan (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Flops that outgross their budgets

It would be helpful to have an explanation of why a film can still be considered a flop if its gross is--sometimes significantly--larger than its budget. Battleship, Hugo, The Last Dinosaur, John Carter, and Jupiter Ascending, to name a few, are all on this list, yet despite the fact that they apparently made a lot more money than they cost, they all have large estimated losses credited to them. The article really doesn't explain this clearly, so the impression is created that the information is inaccurate. Wakener (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have attempted to address this in the lead. Let me know if it is not satisfactory. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I understand the explanation you gave in the lead. But for me as someone who just discovered this page there is still a question. The Box Office gross, is it only gross from movie theatres? If so, then many films on this list may actually not be losses because I think they make a lot of money with Blu-Ray/Online Sales/Rents and also the television channels who broadcast the movies pay a lot aren't they? 5.61.187.113 (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh and merchandise of course, too. 5.61.187.113 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The gross is just from theaters because it is difficult to locate data about video sales and TV rights, but the losses account for ancillary revenues as well. We don't actually calculate the losses, we obtain them from sources such as The Numbers which states "The profit and loss figures are very rough estimates based on domestic and international box office earnings and domestic video sales, extrapolated to estimate worldwide income to the studio, after deducting retail costs." Betty Logan (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Quest For Camelot, Home on the Range, Flushed Away, Turbo, and Mr. Peabody and Sherman

These shall be added also because Warner Brothers lost $40 on Quest For Camelot, the budget which is exactly the movie's production budget. Disney had to write-down about $70 million on Home on the Range. Dreamwork's Animation had to take a $109 million-write down on Flushed Away, a $15.6 million write-down on Turbo, and a $57 million write-down on Mr. Peabody and Sherman. --Evope (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither Turbo nor Peabody meet the $60 million threshold for inclusion. As for the other two we would need sources to determine that they are eligible. Betty Logan (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Variety the $70 million writedown was a combined loss for Home on the Range and The Ladykillers. It is not clear how much of that apportioned to Home on the Range alone. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A $40 million loss for Quest for Camelot would adjust to $59 million today so just misses the list by a whisker. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Geostorm

What about Geostorm? I know it performed not very good domestically and we don't know how much it probably lost. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It suspect it will get on the list but we need a sourced figure before we can add it. Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Foodfight

Should Foodfight be on the list grossing about $73K and a buget of $65M82.37.129.212 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that it could scrape on to the list, since the threshold is about $60 million. That said it's possible that it recouped enough through video and TV to narrowly avoid it. It's impossible to tell unless we get some hard figures for it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible candidates for the list

The Mummy (2017)  Done

The Mummy reportedly lost $95 million. http://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-tom-cruise-box-office-bomb-loss-1202114482 http://www.nme.com/news/film/the-mummy-is-expected-to-lose-95-million-at-global-box-office-2090658 The Wikipedia page for The Mummy says that the movie had "a combined production and advertising budget of around $345 million," and it made $409,104,837 worldwide.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets  Done

Geostorm

Geostorm is expected to lose about $100 million. https://screenrant.com/geostorm-box-office-bomb-flop/

Justice League  Done

Justice League is expected to lose $50 to $100 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/11/20/warner-bros-faces-a-possible-50m-to-100m-loss-on-justice-league/#5e80a1e25d8b --Fladoodle (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Numbers in chart don't all add up.

Many appear to have made a profit when the production budget is subtracted from the box office, like "The Great Wall" (with a box office of $332,000,000 less a production budget of $150,000,000) should yield a profit of $182 million, but a $75 million loss is reported, instead. If the difference is advertising or other factors, then they need to be included in the chart, so it will make sense again. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Read the introduction, it explains all of this. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in general terms, but I believe our readers would like to be able to read the chart and know from that why a specific film lost money. StuRat (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Very few films have their full accounts made public. Take John Carter for instance: it grossed more at the box office than it cost to produce but Disney announced a $200 million writedown, while The Numbers projects an ultimate $129 million loss. Neither Disney nor The Numbers go into specifics and it is impossible to extrapolate from the data that is known to us. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This all seems rather odd. As a publicly traded company, isn't Disney required by law to fully divulge such figures ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The tax returns for film studios tend to show the loss for each division rather than each product. I haven't hunted down Disney's but was certainly the case for Dreamworks.There is no need for them to submit the profit/loss for each film because it can all be offset against each other. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

How much money did Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets lose?

? --Fladoodle (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As a very loose estimate I would say in the $100–200 million range. It was a big money-loser. It's not a case of whether it should be on the list, just a case of when. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a Hollywood Reporter year-end round-up of estimates on Dcember 29th last year, if there's another one it might come soon and should have the info. --Blemby (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of box office bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202104443/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-05/news/36852238_1_ferrell-ron-burgundy-dinosaurs to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-05/news/36852238_1_ferrell-ron-burgundy-dinosaurs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Justice League

Why isn't Justice League included? It seems unlikely that it could reach it break-even mark of $750 million. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So the cost of the production and marketing was $375 million? Well, it has grossed $650 million so has recouped approximately $325 million give or take, meaning there is only a shortfall of about $50 million. It would need to lose at least $60 million to qualify for the list. Once you factor in DVD sales and TV rights it may even turn out to be profitable. I don't really think it is a candidate for the list if those are indeed the true numbers. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/11/20/warner-bros-faces-a-possible-50m-to-100m-loss-on-justice-league/#5e80a1e25d8b

--Fladoodle (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential movies that bombed could be listed

Do you think The Mummy (2017 film) and Geostorm could be on that list, because of their box office results? BattleshipMan (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Mummy is already on the list, Geostorm will almost certainly be added at some point. It's just a question of a getting a figure and sourcing it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Depends of which source it can reveal the numbers on Geostorm. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to don't merge after 1 oppose. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:5DF7:13F1:AFD3:B4B2 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that List of animated box office bombs be merged into List of box office bombs. I think that the content in the List of animated box office bombs article can easily be explained in the context of List of box office bombs, and the List of box office bombs article is of a reasonable size that the merging of List of animated box office bombs will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:5DF7:13F1:AFD3:B4B2 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The scope of this topic is "films in general", not "live-action films" so animated films are already covered to the same extent that live-action films are covered. Moving the animated list into this article would actually cause unnecessary duplication: 12 of the 18 films are already included in the list, so I would argue that animated films are already substantially covered by this article without making them a special case and duplicating two-thirds of the material. Of the remaining six films not on this list, three of them lost 40 mil or less so are questionanable bombs anyway. I really don't see a strong argument for making a distinction between live-action films and animated films when both are reasonably represented by simply considering them together. However, I understand the premise for the merge: since the animated list duplicates two-thirds of this article it is questionable whether the list needs to exist at all. Perhaps WP:Articles for deletion would be a better route? Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

lowest grossing film list

is there a lowest grossing film list like the highest grossing film list? the list would be different from box office bomb list since that is just the box office earnings while this is about profit. examples are The Worst Movie Ever! ($11) and Zyzzyx Road ($30) which are not even on this list -155.69.160.77 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I think it would be virtually impossible to construct such a list because there is nothing to prevent me making my own movie and hiring a theater to screen it at. There are probably thousands of films that have grossed something like $30. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Henry

The Book of Henry was a box office bomb, costing $10 million to make and making back less then half its budget. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Losing $10 million these days doesn't make a film a box-office bomb, just unprofitable. All films on this listed have lost over $70 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A film can be considered to be a box office bomb even if its box office revenues equals its production budget. Remember that films also have marketing and distribution costs, and that it must split its box office revenues with the movie theater. In fact, a film may have to earn three or four times its production budget in order to be profitable. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am quite aware of that considering there are films on the list where the gross exceeds the budget. The point here is that the list is limited to the top 100 bombs so a film has to lose around $70 million to get on on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Geostorm

Resolved

Geostorm reportedly lost about $71.6 million. http://www.deadline.com/2018/03/king-arthur-geostorm-monster-trucks-the-promise-the-great-wall-box-office-losses-1202354934/ --Fladoodle (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Missed film

For reasons that I might not understand, the 2012 film Dredd (film) has been left out of the list. If someone could explain why it doesn't appear on this list, then I'd be happy. Cypher7850 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, perhaps because it didn't bomb? Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It did bomb. Sites like The Numbers have its worldwide box office total as less than its production budget [4], so it must have lost a lot of money. However, it still probably didn't lose enough to make it onto the list, which requires an inflation-adjusted loss of about $70 million. Calathan (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Thanks for explaining Calathan. Cypher7850 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the name of this article may need to be changed to List of largest box office bombs. With no qualifier in the title, this problem might keep coming up. --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. Or should it be List of biggest box office bombs? I can't decide which is grammatically correct. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Every list i've seen on WP has "largest." --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think "biggest" sounds better. JMHO - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and this doesn't really settle the debate over which is the correct adjective to use) the article used to be called List of biggest box office bombs but was renamed in 2012. If we did move the article back there we would need to get that redirect zapped. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not a big deal. This site seems to indicate that "biggest" is the way to go. This was the first hit in a Google search of "biggest vs largest". FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

“ https://bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/2012-2/dredd/

Lionsgate dated Dredd for September 21 and spent a reported $25 million on P&A. It bowed against End Of Watch, House At The End Of The Street, Trouble With The Curve and the nation wide expansion of The Master. The marketing for Dredd was terrible and despite decent reviews and a salivating fan base, the marketing never attracted audiences outside of the geek comic book fanbase. Tracking was soft going into release and it was only expected to pull in $8 – $10 million for the weekend. Dredd was dead on arrival with $6,278,491 — placing #6 over the very slow weekend led by End Of Watch. Even with the awful opening, Dredd was front-loaded and sank 62.3% the following frame to $2,363,956. It lasted just six weeks in theaters and ended its US run with only $13,414,714. Lionsgate would see returned about $7.3 million after theaters take their percentage of the gross, leaving most of the $25+ million marketing spend in the red. Overseas the film amounted to only $28,052,892, posting red ink for all of the distributors who picked up the rights and invested in a sizable marketing spend.

”

BornonJune8 (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Movies that might eventually be added to the list

A Wrinkle in Time has to make at least $400 million to break even. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/08/review-a-wrinkle-in-time-delivers-weird-fun-and-heartfelt-family-entertainment/

Pacific Rim Uprising has to make at least $350 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/03/pacific-rim-uprising-black-panther-weekend-box-office-1202352184/

Rampage has to make at least $400 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/04/dwayne-johnson-rampage-box-office-weekend-a-quiet-place-1202363694/ Fladoodle (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the numbers provided, it's unlikely that Pac Rim 2 will be added. Entries on the list have lost at least $70M. PR2 would need to earn less than $280M (350-70), but it's currently at $286.5M and still in theatres. Likewise, Rampage will need to earn less than $330M (400-70), and it's currently at $334.6M, also still in theatres. Wrinkle in Time however might become an entry. It needs to earn less than $330M (400-70) and it's only at $125M. Still in theatres, but nearing the end of it's run. So, again, based on all the numbers provided, it looks like PR2 and Rampage likely not, but Wrinkle in Time likely so. - ^theWOLFchild 03:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomb Raider has to make at least $275 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/03/tomb-raider-black-panther-i-can-only-imagine-love-simon-weekend-box-office-results-sunday-1202341517/

Fladoodle (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's already at $273M and still in theatres, so another unlikely candidate for the list. - ^theWOLFchild 20:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time lost $86-186 million. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lone-loser-disneys-big-quarter-wrinkle-time-220638977.html --Fladoodle (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That figure only considers box-office and does not factor in home video and TV rights, so it's not a true reflection of the loss. If it did indeed cost $250 to produce and market then it will probably make the list with a loss of ~$100 million, but if only cost $150 million then it is highly unlikely it will lose enough to make the list. We need to wait for a more authoritative figure before adding to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But home media and pay-TV aren’t part of the box office. The box office is, very specifically, the take from ticket sales at movie theaters, and nothing else. The amount of money it may earn afterwords through other revenue streams is not taken into consideration when applying the "box office bomb" term. Films also have marketing and distribution costs, and that it must split its box office revenues with the movie theater. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For most studios, most of their money is made from their cut of the box-office as the value of both TV rights and home video have been decreasing. There was a time when home video was so big that some studios made direct-to-video movies (e.g. Asylum Entertainment), but with the rise of subscribing streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime) most audiences no longer buy or rent films. There was also a time when TV rights were lucrative but the current trend for cable channels (e.g. HBO, Starz, Showtime) to make their own content has reduced those earning as well. Some studios like those of The Walt Disney Company, have subsidiaries that allow movies to monetize their movies through other means. Disney for example, uses its movies to generate revenues from licensed merchandise, theme parks attractions, live shows, music albums and more. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Solo: A Star Wars Story --Fladoodle (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there a point to these "potential additions" you keep listing that might or might not be added? Either they will or they won't, but that will be determined by sourcing and not by any of these prognostications. This isn't really what these talk pages are for. (imho) - ^theWOLFchild 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

People have been listing movies that they think should be added to the list for a long time on this talk page.

--Fladoodle (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, there were some other films mentioned before that also should not have been, while yet some other films were mentioned after they were at the end of their run (or near it), and had sources attached with numbers confirming losses bad enough to be listed as a bomb. Solo: ASWT is no where near that yet (if at all). Some of the other movies listed above were also noted prematurely and in some cases did not end up as entries on this list. Trying to start a chit-chat about movies you don't personally like and/or think will become a box office flop is basically treating this page as forum, which it is not. - ^theWOLFchild 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter says that Solo is expected to lose $50-80 million. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/solo-will-post-first-loss-disneys-star-wars-empire-1116927 I don’t know if it’s too early to add it to the list or not. The only country it has left to open in is Japan which it will open in on June 29, but I don’t know how much longer it will be in theaters worldwide. Fladoodle (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

They are using a global gross of $400 million as the basis for that estimate, so if it finishes within 10% of that figure I'd say add it then. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's at $353M now. Nergaal (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is still making decent weekly money and it opens in Japan on Friday. It looks like it will cross 400 mil but not by much. We will have a clearer picture once it has opened in Japan. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Still under 380M. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Now it’s at $384,931,925.

Fladoodle (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did Solo: A Star Wars Story flop at the box office?

• A predecessor film (TLJ) that divided fans.
• Perhaps a bit of a saturated Star Wars market.
• The very REAL cinema apocalypse that is just beyond worse than what most people understand. (If you isolate North American adjusted-for-*inflation box office receipts, you’ll see just how terrible it is.)
• A slightly congested release period (bracketed by a bunch of anticipated films: Infinity War & Deadpool on the back end; Upgraded, Incredibles and Jurassic World on the front end).
• A film that nobody was asking for.
• A production process that was plagued with issues (driving the costs sky-high to $275 million).
• A persnickety fanbase that —to their fault— bitches about everything, thus politicizing films in a way that is ONLY exacerbated by …
• A studio head who, herself, has made some less-than-optimal statements about those fans (that even if they deserve, isn’t the kind of thing a studio head should be saying if they want to —you know— sell the product they’re charged with selling).
• Indeed, a mediocre (at worst) plot that just wasn’t that exciting. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note that the estimated minimum loss for this film is far too low. Assume they spent only $250M on production, and spent nothing at all on advertising. For them to lose only $50M on a $393M gross would still require them to be getting over 50% of the box office. As the introduction to this article notes, 50% is a reasonable figure domestically, and supposedly it's even lower internationally. And they definitely spent money on advertising. There's simply no way that Solo could have lost only $50M. I realize a source says it was headed for a $50M loss, but that source can't possibly be accurate.

Furthermore, the estimated maximum loss for the film is also much too low. Several sources online indicate that the final cost of the film with marketing was over $400M. Assume they were able to take home a full 50% of the box office gross worldwide, or about $197M. That means a loss of over $200M – making this potentially the biggest box office bomb of all time. I'm happy to update the article with better figures, but wanted to post a note about it here first to generate discussion since the article at present seems to be wildly incorrect.

amfucla (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The two figures in the article come from reputable sources. The citation for the two figures comes from The Hollywood Reporter and says "Wall Street analyst Barton Crockett says Solo will lose more than $50 million. Industry financing sources, however, say that figure could come in at $80 million or higher, although no one knows the exact terms of Disney's deals for home entertainment and television, among other ancillary revenues." We have two independent estimates there, and while both agree the film will lose a lot of money neither one is putting those losses at anywhere near $200 million. Also, your figures omit home video revenue, streaming and broadcast rights. So while a $200 million loss may be a good starting point the box-office is just one revenue window. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Sindbad : Legend of the Seven Seas

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is listed as the highest estimated loss, adjusted for inflation, with a loss of $125,000,000 (in 2003, adjusted to $166,000,000). Its is well attested and sourced that its net budget was $60,000,000 and its worldwide gross is $80,767,884, thus earning a benefit of $20,767,884. It makes literally sense to attribute to it a $125,000,000 loss that is mathematically impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Meuble (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If you read the lead of this article then it would be clear to you why your Math does not stack up. The accompanying source that is provided along with Sinbad's entry states "The company nearly went bankrupt twice, Geffen said during a panel discussion in New York this year, adding that when the animated film "Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas" flopped in 2003, the resulting $125-million loss nearly sank his company." If you are correct then that means that David Geffen—who co-owned Dreamworks—is either incorrect or dishonest, and we would need independent reliable sources for either of those cases. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a book about DreamWorks called The Men Who Would Be King. There's a whole chapter in there called "What Sinbad Wrought". From what I can see (since I can't get the whole book) Sinbad caused severe cutbacks at the whole company. The big loss seems accurate. --Blemby (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Monsieur Meuble - the math with films is never that simple and straight forward (box office minus budget equals profit or loss). There are always other factors to consider, chiefly among them advertising costs. Studios and/or production companies spend millions, (often tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions), to promote their films. These expenditures are almost never included in the disclosed budget (and the disclosed budget is not always accurate either). You will often read of "blockbusters" with $200M budgets that actually need twice that just to break even. It's the mysteries of 'Hollywood accounting". Listen to Betty Logan, she maintains these pages and knows what she's taking about. - ^theWOLFchild 23:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Filmsite

Filmsite is a well-researched site that this article depends heavily on. Unfortunately the box-office bombs section has been overhauled so that its numbers now match Wikipedia's i.e. they are now using Wikipedia as a source. This creates a problem for us, because per WP:CIRCULAR it now means we can no longer use Filmsite as a source for this article. From now on there must be an embargo on using Filmsite as a source; I don't want to just rip out the current citations to Filmsite because this will leave some films unsourced but we do need to start looking at replacing its existing usage in the article because it is in technical violation of the verifiability policy. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Could you clarify some of this? Who overhauled the article? And when? When you say; so that its numbers now match Wikipedia's, I take it you mean so that each entry here matched each individual film article? I thought using WP as a source was not permitted. What sources are being used in those articles? Are they suitable? Can they be used here? Why is there a difference between them and Filmsite? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to follow what has transpired here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 11:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The List of box office bombs uses a variety of different sources for its figures. One of them was Filmsite. If you look at the source section in List of box office bombs you will see many references to Filmsite. The problem though is that Filmsite was overhauled some time in the last couple of months and they changed all their numbers to match the numbers at List of box office bombs. So List of box office bombs used Filmsite as a source, and now Filmsite has decided to use List of box office bombs as a source. This has created a circular reference. As an example as to why this is a problem, if I made a mistake and incorrectly changed John Carter's loss figure to $400 million then the next update to Filmsite will probably change the figure too; I could then use Filmsite as a source for the figure, essentially making wrong data verifiable using "circular referencing". It's banned on Wikipedia for good reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see now... it was Filmsite that was 'overhauled'... I thought you meant this article was (that's why I was asking about "who" and "when"). I read that wrong, hence the confusion. Thanks for clarifying that for me. One more question, would it be possible to contact Filmsite and explain the problem to them? Maybe they could resume using their previous sourcing. Just a thought. Anyway, thanks again. - ^theWOLFchild 12:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Name change

@Betty Logan, Blemby, Thewolfchild, Barkeep49, BornonJune8, and GoneIn60: There seems to be agreement that the name should be changed, with the proposals being "List of biggest box office bombs" or "List of largest box office bombs", unless anyone else wants to suggest another. I believe it should be 'biggest', since largest feels more for something with a quantifiable size whereas box office bombs are more theoretical. There is also a discussion at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs_(2000s)#Long. over what to do with the box office bombs by decade pages (keep, change or delete) for anyone interested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I support having a quantifier in the title. I suggested "biggest" above but it really doesn't matter to me whether it is "biggest" or "largest" because both would be an improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Put me down for "biggest", (as above). - ^theWOLFchild 23:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think "biggest" sounds fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we also tack on something to the end, like "...in history", or "...of all time"? Eg: "The biggest box office bombs ever"...? Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need for qualifying it with all time, is that normal? So is it cool for me to move this to the name we've agreed on (List of biggest box office bombs), or should we wait for more, or what? Should there be some tag on the article about this discussion, or should we just go for it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can move it... that's what WP:BOLD is all about. (and WP:IAR if necessary). If someone disagrees or feels some protocol should have been followed, you'll hear about soon enough. And it can always be moved back if it needs to. - ^theWOLFchild 06:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

These lists don't usually append "of all-time" or "ever" (see Lists of highest-grossing films). Also, if we move this article to List of biggest box office bombs it will require a formal request because the redirect at the new title will need to be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. I've moved articles before but not into where there exists a redirect. What if we just moved the redirect article somewhere else? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 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 for move, therefore, moved to List of biggest box-office bombs. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 20:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

---

List of box office bombs → List of biggest box-office bombs – There has been ongoing discussion regarding this change and consensus seems to favour it. Posting RM to make it official. (FYI: new name already exists as a redirect.) - ^theWOLFchild 22:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(Added hyphen to "box-office", per comment below. - ^theWOLFchild 15:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC))

• Support as proposer. - ^theWOLFchild 22:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per previous section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined in the above section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - adding "biggest" seems unnecessary, and overall the "box office bombs" title reads more like clickbait/Buzzfeed than an encyclopedia article. Can't we find a better solution? Something to mirror List of highest-grossing films like perhaps List of lowest-grossing films or maybe more accurately List of lowest-netting films? -- Netoholic @ 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of lowest grossing films? What?? Quite frankly if you think it's a clickbait title, you don't think much of the topic either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: - "As "gross" refers to "gross profit", "List of lowest-grossing films" would be a list of films with a (difficult, if not impossible to find) gross of zero, (or as close to it as possible). This is a list of films that lost money (lost the most, to be specific). So your suggested title would not fit at all. As for your 'oppose', the whole idea that this article is "click bait" is basically ridiculous and I'm sure your vote will be given the weight it deserves... - ^theWOLFchild 14:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of gross vs loss - my suggestions were examples as I don't have a firm alternative in mind that captures the proper scope, but I would welcome someone to propose a decent alternative . The last line of your reply is intolerably rude. I didn't say the article is clickbait, I said the current (and proposed) title of it is. And as for the weight of my vote, these RM discussion are not a vote, but a discussion and all viewpoints should deserve consideration. -- Netoholic @ 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why it may have that appearance, but there's a standalone article with that phrase as the title, and it's a well-established industry term used in numerous sources. The proposal here is an improvement that would help narrow the list's focus. Perhaps there's a better option, but I haven't seen one yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This article was already at "List of biggest box office bombs" once before and was moved away from that for being an unencyclopedic title. The proposal isn't a "better" option, just a different one, and one that adds extra wording that is not usually needed. The inclusion criteria for this list should be those movies cited as being the least profitable (ie going into the negative) so perhaps something like List of least profitable films might be a truly better alternative. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem though is that profit is a subject term. For example, a film that makes $1 million on a $10 million investment has a worse return on investment than a film that loses $50 million on a $100 million investment, but this article is explicitly charting absolute loss. The Numbers for example, calls its equivalent chart "Biggest Money Losers, Based on Absolute Loss on Worldwide Earnings". I am actually very open on what to call the article, but I do believe a quantifier is essential and both List of biggest box office bombs and List of largest box office bombs would be better than the status quo. I don't want to fall into the trap of not improving the name of the article simply because we can't agree on the perfect name. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the current and proposed titles were the only two options, then adding "biggest" is not an improvement. It implies that we're basing the list off absolute number values, rather than based on sufficient mention in secondary sources. The new title would wrongly encourage WP:OR in determining placement in this list. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the article, that is exactly what it does. It is a chart of the biggest money-losers, with a rough cut-off limit of around 100 films. And there is no OR in the list because every single entry is individually sourced. It is not OR to select a discriminant for a list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be less subjective and less likely to be an WP:OR issue if we went strictly by the numbers (as reported in reliable sources of course). I'm not sure I understand your opposition to that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Because to do that you must insert WP:OR to define numerical cut-offs for inclusion. Instead, the inclusion criteria should be based on what secondary sources consider to "bombs" and not what Wikipedia editors believe are bombs based on a numerical calculation. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research to say that we're only going to list box office bombs of a certain threshold. That's an editorial choice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're moving the goal posts. Your original suggestion was to choose a different name, such as "List of lowest-grossing films" (which ironically would have the same issue you just covered), but now you've moved the focus to the content/organization of the article, which is out of scope of a move discussion. I agree that the inclusion criteria in the list should be based on what reliable sources determine. There are plenty of all-time ranked lists we can define the order by, such as the one provided by Filmsite.org. There are also plenty of sources that provide production budgets, revenue, and estimated losses so that we don't have to do any calculation beyond what's allowed by WP:CALC (in fact, there are ranges in the chart to avoid going beyond any basic calculation). As an uninvolved editor that has no stake in the outcome of this discussion, any perceived issue with article content is a matter best served in a separate discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support – For reasons stated here and at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s)#LONG.. Attempting to list every box office bomb is not feasible, considering the inclusion criteria varies from source to source, and certainly not encyclopedic based on length. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The article used to be at List of biggest box office bombs and was moved without discussion a few years ago, from what I can see. This RM would just be restoring the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You can't claim "status quo" from six years ago. There are a half-dozen other titles that would be considered "status quo" if we were to go back far into the article's history. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

    The article was renamed unilaterally, and nobody as yet has put up an argument as to why List of box office bombs is preferable to List of biggest box office bombs. Even in your opposition above you didn't actually show any support for the current name. If there isn't any support at all for the current title then there is no reason not to move it back. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're missing the point here. Without a quantifier in the title, such as "biggest", the list would technically be expected to include "all" box office bombs. Because of recent discussion, it's clear that we need to limit the list or delete it altogether. This proposed name change is a step in the right direction if the list is to be retained in its current form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(break)

• move to List of biggest box-office bombs. The current title is incorrectly punctuated. "Box-office" is a compound modifier so must be hyphened per MOS:HYPHEN and normal English rules. It matters too, because when I first saw this I assumed it was something to do with bombs in offices delivered by box, or something. Very confusing.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well it's good thing you noticed that. (I knew it about it all along, was just testing everyone, see how long it took someone to bring it up ;-) ). It also fixes the page-move issue. Good job, Amakuru. Carry on everyone... - ^theWOLFchild 15:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Does this turn it from a requested move to an unrequested move? I can't think of a precedent for this so I'm just going to move this to the hyphenated destination if there are no objections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Actually, you shouldn't do it because you're involved. It's better if an uninvolved editor, preferrably an admin, does it. The best way for you to go about it is to post a 'close request' at WP:ANRFC. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 02:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a reasonably clear consensus for a page move and I would have done so if the page did not already exist. WP:ANRFC is for more unclear consensuses. What may be unclear here is if the consensus for moving the page to List of biggest box office bombs is equal to a consensus for moving the page to List of biggest box-office bombs. It would seem to me it is, since the reason for the move regarded addition of the word "biggest", and the hyphen could easily be considered mildly WP:BOLD. That is what I am waiting for further comments on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem uncertain. You mentioned "objections". There are some. But you also mentioned WP:BOLD. Well, if you're gonna be "bold", just go ahead and move it already. I gave you my suggestion (and therefore reserve the right to claim I told you so! Nyah! ;-), if it goes wrong). But seriously, if you want move it, then move it. I don't think the comma is an issue, and in fact it helps, because the page with the comma is available and we don't need and admin for that. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 13:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

BOLD moves are for when we can make a reasonable assumption there is no opposition. There has been one "oppose" so let's just go through the motions on this one. It's never a good idea for discussion participant to close the discussion no matter how obvious the outcome seems. Some one will come along and close this eventually but if you want to speed up the process then WP:ANRFC is the way to go. Betty Logan (talk) 13:50, 12 August 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6