Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of biggest box-office bombs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Inclusion of The Lego Movie 2
Where's that on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:7830:1060:5115:5750 (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Someone should add it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:18AF:13B3:E554:5E66 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- It cost $99 million and grossed $191 million. What makes you think it belongs on this list? Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Someone should add it then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12F0:2370:18AF:13B3:E554:5E66 (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It was supposed to break-even at $201 million. Still a slight bomb.
Inclusion of MIB International
Why isn't that on this list? That movie made $250 million so far after nearly 2 months of being in theaters and yet it's needed to break even at $300 million.
Biggest bombs by Gross to Production Budget Ratio
I propose a new section for movies with the smallest Gross to PB ratio. I find that a better measure of how badly a movie performed compared to overall loss. For example, if a movie earned 50 million on a budget of 100 million, the ratio would be 50/100 = 0.5
- That's not the definition of a bomb. A film could cost $10 million and make back only $1 million, thus losing most of its money, but nobody would classify it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all-time. Under such a proposal turkeys such as John Carter and The Lone Ranger would not make the list despite being among the biggest money-losers of all-time. Also, please don't remove sourced content as you did here. If you think the information is incorrect raise the issue on the talk page. If you believe the information to be out-of-date then provide a more up-to-date source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- at least would it be possible to make a new column for this ratio?
- It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. That would be like adding a profit ratio to the List of highest-grossing films. If you want a chart covering return on investment then create a new article that covers this topic. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- at least would it be possible to make a new column for this ratio?
only 4 movies for 2018?
2016 and 2017 have far more bombs, maybe some films is missing from 2018?
The only major flop from last year, meaning one whose budget is at least $100 million, is The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which, according to Deadline here, lost $65.8 million. This page's criteria is for films to lose at least $70 million. Sure, there were other flops, but they cost nowhere near as much as the ones on this list. Crboyer (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Transformers: The Last Knight
According to its article, the fifth Transformers movie (released in 2017) was a box office bomb as its below-average gross wasn't enough to offset its colossal budget of $217-260 million. This film should thus be added to the list. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Done
On Cleopatra
I saw this article from THR yesterday : [1] about the biggest box-office bombs, and they list Cleopatra - which when looking around at other "biggest box-office bomb" lists on RS, nearly is always mentioned. But, rough calculations, if you take the gross less production costs, it made a profit; if you take was 20th Century Fox actually took, it lost something in single-digital millions, which in today's dollars would still be less than $70M. So I understand why it is not on the list, but I wonder if there should be some section to list "Other notable box-office Bombs" where there is clear RS to show that it should be listed on this page but not in the table. I'm just not sure if there are any other examples, and maybe this should possible something in the lead, being noted as one of the biggest flops (even though mathematically it doesn't show up on the table), just so that a reader coming to this page to see where Cleopatra - with its reputation as one of the costly films made - fits into this scheme. --Masem (t) 14:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cleopatra is a curious one. It was the biggest film of the year (and 6th biggest of the decade) so slightly unfair to refer to it as a bomb, and ultimately lost $4 million (about 40 mil today) on its theatrical run, simply due to its extremely high cost. It broke even in 1966 when it was sold to TV and is now a highly profitable back catalog title. One other mythical "flop" is Waterworld which had tremendous foreign sales and did well enough on video to break even. The problem though is that a list containing the likes of Cleo and Waterworld wouldn't really be a list of flops it would be a list of films that weren't really flops. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I was suggesting maybe a very brief addition to the lede to explain why these two notable "disasters" don't actually appear but are often mentioned when the words "box office bomb" are brought up. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea, and mention maybe a few notable examples. I have the sources to do this (at least for Cleopatra and Waterworld) so I'll dig them out this weekend and add a few sentences to the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I linked up the THR article above from yesterday, since it actually explains why Cleo is not there. (It doesn't mention WW though). I'll start something. --Masem (t) 00:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea, and mention maybe a few notable examples. I have the sources to do this (at least for Cleopatra and Waterworld) so I'll dig them out this weekend and add a few sentences to the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I was suggesting maybe a very brief addition to the lede to explain why these two notable "disasters" don't actually appear but are often mentioned when the words "box office bomb" are brought up. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Assassin's Creed
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Assassin's Creed lost $75–100 million, should it be added on the list? --Leo Mercury (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- According to The Hollywood Reporter the film will lose $75–100 million "even if the movie takes in $150 million worldwide". Since the film took in $240 million worldwide I think it is safe to say it lost substantially less than that estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Gemini Man
It needs $300m to break even. Based on its current projection, it may not even top $200m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.234.165 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The Irishman, worst bomb ever?
This film cost $159M, and only grossed $2.5M so far. Would this make it the biggest bomb of all time? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's not clear how the success of the film will be judged. It looks like Netflix is gambling on a streaming model by not giving it a wide release. Since Netflix does not generate traditional rental income it is not clear how much money The Irishman will make or lose. Betty Logan (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- BThe fact is, The Irishman grossed $2.5M off of a $159M budget. Whether or not it was quickly shoved onto Netflix is irrelevant. Solo was also on Netflix, but we don't use that to say that it wasn't a bomb. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The film never had a traditional wide theatrical release, so its revenues cannot be used to determine its bomb status. --Masem (t) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Per Masem. If Netflix had made Avengers Endgame and put it straight on to Netflix without a theatrical window would we categorise it as a bomb? Pretty much every Netflix film/show is a bomb if you assess it purely by how much it cost (usually a lot) and how much it makes (pretty much nothing as an individual product). To properly assess its financial performance you'd need to know its audience share of the overall Netflix catalog and Netflix's overall revenue in each fiscal year. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like it has to at least be mentioned. There's no way it isn't one of the biggest bombs ever. Even if we can't know for sure its revenue. I mean, to say that this isn't a bomb is to say that no movie ever is a bomb, as long as it got some undisclosed amount of money from streaming royalties. But eh, I guess it's just original research unless I can find a source on exactly how much the studio lost off of it. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The problem as noted above is that we have no idea of the amount of revenue it generated. The Irishman received 26 million viewings in its first week and was projected to receive 40 million after a month. Now, on YouTube the average bog-standard video rental will cost £3.50 ($4.50), and £5.50 ($7.00) for a new release. So if you credit the average rental fee that would put earnings at $180–280 million. In truth it will probably shoot over 50 million hits in its first fiscal quarter so it has probably drummed up the equivalent of $225–350 million of business for Netflix, and Netflix won't be having to split that money with theaters in the same way studios do. Its marketing costs are probably much lower too. So following traditional accounting methods it probably broke even more or less. But Netflix's model doesn't really depend on how many people watched the film, it depends on how many new subscribers it attracted to the service i.e. how many of those 40 million accounts are new accounts. For example, 50 million views and 2 million new accounts is worth more to Netflix than 100 million views and only 1 million new accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also I would also think we need sources that say to some degree "The Irishman is a box office bomb", which, from a quick search, I am not seeing. Most RSes all agree that the primary distribution channel of the film through Netflix with the limited screening as to meet Oscar requirements means that trying to put the $2.5M box office against the $159M is an apple/orange comparison and not appropriate to call a bomb. It would be like calling Pixar's Onward a BOB due to the fact that COVID closed down the theaters during its opening weeks. Its $100M box office against its $175-$200M budget is being taken by no RS as a BOB because of unusual circumstances here. We have to be wise to look beyond the numbers and make sure there's a source talking about the film being a bomb, losing money for the studio, or something like that. --Masem (t) 04:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you have to think of The Irishman as more of a component in a service rather than a film. It just doesn't fit the conventional hit/bomb model, and many more films are going to go that way. I guess if you want to find an analogy, a studio might pay $1 million for an advertising spot on TV to advertise their product (a movie); however, we don't say the $1 million advert lost $1 million. In our scenario The Irishman has ceased to be the product that must generate money and becomes the advertising spot for Netflix i.e. it's a $160 million advert for a streaming service. Betty Logan (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also I would also think we need sources that say to some degree "The Irishman is a box office bomb", which, from a quick search, I am not seeing. Most RSes all agree that the primary distribution channel of the film through Netflix with the limited screening as to meet Oscar requirements means that trying to put the $2.5M box office against the $159M is an apple/orange comparison and not appropriate to call a bomb. It would be like calling Pixar's Onward a BOB due to the fact that COVID closed down the theaters during its opening weeks. Its $100M box office against its $175-$200M budget is being taken by no RS as a BOB because of unusual circumstances here. We have to be wise to look beyond the numbers and make sure there's a source talking about the film being a bomb, losing money for the studio, or something like that. --Masem (t) 04:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- The problem as noted above is that we have no idea of the amount of revenue it generated. The Irishman received 26 million viewings in its first week and was projected to receive 40 million after a month. Now, on YouTube the average bog-standard video rental will cost £3.50 ($4.50), and £5.50 ($7.00) for a new release. So if you credit the average rental fee that would put earnings at $180–280 million. In truth it will probably shoot over 50 million hits in its first fiscal quarter so it has probably drummed up the equivalent of $225–350 million of business for Netflix, and Netflix won't be having to split that money with theaters in the same way studios do. Its marketing costs are probably much lower too. So following traditional accounting methods it probably broke even more or less. But Netflix's model doesn't really depend on how many people watched the film, it depends on how many new subscribers it attracted to the service i.e. how many of those 40 million accounts are new accounts. For example, 50 million views and 2 million new accounts is worth more to Netflix than 100 million views and only 1 million new accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like it has to at least be mentioned. There's no way it isn't one of the biggest bombs ever. Even if we can't know for sure its revenue. I mean, to say that this isn't a bomb is to say that no movie ever is a bomb, as long as it got some undisclosed amount of money from streaming royalties. But eh, I guess it's just original research unless I can find a source on exactly how much the studio lost off of it. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Per Masem. If Netflix had made Avengers Endgame and put it straight on to Netflix without a theatrical window would we categorise it as a bomb? Pretty much every Netflix film/show is a bomb if you assess it purely by how much it cost (usually a lot) and how much it makes (pretty much nothing as an individual product). To properly assess its financial performance you'd need to know its audience share of the overall Netflix catalog and Netflix's overall revenue in each fiscal year. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The film never had a traditional wide theatrical release, so its revenues cannot be used to determine its bomb status. --Masem (t) 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- BThe fact is, The Irishman grossed $2.5M off of a $159M budget. Whether or not it was quickly shoved onto Netflix is irrelevant. Solo was also on Netflix, but we don't use that to say that it wasn't a bomb. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
All good points, but these are really just scratching the surface. Netflix banks on retaining subscribers too. However, it's nearly impossible to gauge exactly what content on Netflix is responsible for both retaining existing subscribers and signing up new ones. In many cases, it's likely a combination of different offerings on the streaming service, adding even more complexity. It's also extremely difficult to look at numbers on Netflix and determine what percentage of that would have translated to theater ticket sales. Some percentage will always wait for the streaming release. In addition, new content appears frequently and the streaming landscape is constantly changing. The existing competition – Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube – are increasingly becoming more competitive, Disney+ is causing a noticeable impact, and newcomers HBO Max and Peacock are right around the corner. Fluctuation in membership cannot necessarily be pinned down to one particular service's content – and that's not even taking price into consideration.
Another point to consider is the impact on the film industry. It's conceivable that Netflix is gaining leverage in future negotiations. The Irishman didn't get a wide release, and a lot of that had to do with theaters refusing to budge from their existing revenue model, which in the US sees them take nearly 50% of the money a film makes at the box office. They also refused to back down on the 90-day window that makes a film exclusive to theatrical showings before it can appear in other mediums. As a result, the film's release was limited to small, independent theaters that Netflix could rent out. But the success of recent Netflix films that essentially skipped theaters, both in terms of viewership and award nominations/wins, gains them much needed leverage down the road, and you can't really put a price tag on that (yet), especially if it ends up having an impact. Any perceived loss now could end up being a net gain and critical component of future success.
Here are a few sources worth reading about this:
- Can best picture Oscar nominee ‘The Irishman’ make money for Netflix? It’s complicated. -- Chicago Tribune
- Netflix Reports a Subscriber Bump as Disney Poses a New Threat -- New York Times
- Netflix's Oscar-Nominated 'The Irishman' Cost a Reported $175M - Here's Why It Might Have Been Worth It -- TheStreet
Although this doesn't really provide any answers, and the sources don't necessarily agree, hopefully it helps shed light on just how complex this really is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Arctic Dogs
Arctic Dogs has become a box office bomb and had the worst opening weekend gross for a film that opened in 2,800 U.S. cinemas. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Playmobil: The Movie
Total Budget = $75m (+3m Marketing) = $78m
Worldwide Gross = 12.5m Outside the US. May not cross 1.5m in USA = 14m
Loss = $64m
https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/12/10/playmobil-the-movie-reportedly-had-a-budget-of-75-million-opened/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.90.101 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Cats
Production Budget is $95m WW (Which may increase as the VFX are not done, and the film was well marketed) Domestic Opening is only $6m in USA and $5m in other territories Negative word of mouth everywhere means that It is unlikely to have a strong multiplier ala The Greatest Showman
Movies released in December have an average multiplier of 4. Assuming that Cats reaches this multiplier and the worldwide gross is proportional to domestic gross, the total gross can be expected to be $44m WW.
Expect a loss greater than $70m, and a spot on the list (Depending on how much VFX and Marketing Cost) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.9.175 (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Does Midway count?
Before I jump the gun here putting it on here, the 2019 Roland Emmerich remake of Midway seemed to have made $56.6 million domestically and $66.4 million internationally (making $136 million in total) against its $100 million budget. Should it count?--Sticky v. Speedwagon (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Impossible to say without a source stating how much it is expected to lose. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Dolittle
Dolittle (film) - THR tracking it for a bomb $30M on its $175M budget. --Masem (t) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Star Wars : The Rise Of Skywalker
I see this films is likely going backwards comparing to The Force Awakens, and The Last Jedi, from opening weekend, criticial responses, and plots. Even the Rise of Skywalker is likely hit, I am doubtful if hit. If you check in this website, www.awfulmovies.miraheze.org, even Star Wars : The Force Awakens, and The Last Jedi, with 93% RT and 91% RT respectively, it is still categorized as Awful Movies. Within the budget of $275 million, and bombed in China, and only got "Average" in critical responses, including RT, PT, Meta, this movies is yet to be bombed even grossed $1 billion after 4 week release. Throwback on 2011 most expensive films, "Pirates Of The Caribbean : On Stranger Tides", has a similar problem of box office. Should we added "The Rise Of Skywalker" in box office bomb list? F63hj5zl87mh (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- F63hj5zl87mh, it made a major profit, as reported by numerous reliable sources. Not a box office bomb. Popcornduff (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there is minimum estimated loss threshold for this?
I saw work about The Rhythm Section being a potential $30M bomb off a $50M budget [2] which is relatively low for this list. Does this list have a "minimum loss threshold", and if it doesn't, should it? (And if it needs one, I would suggest $50M est. loss as the minimum). Otherwise, if there's no lower bound, then this should be added, but I wanted to check on this first. --Masem (t) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- The list is limited to around 100 films give or take (it can't be exact because some films have different estimates), so it will be of a similar length to the highest-grossing lists. Currently this translates to an upper-bound loss of $75 million. The inclusion criteria is given just above the table. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'm going to consider Rhythm Section too low to include as it would fall outside 100. --Masem (t) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Birds of Prey
People and sites are delcaring it a flop, and it has only made 173.4 million world wide. And since Variety estimates that the movie needs to make 250-300 million to break even and it has only made 173 million, I think it does deserve a place on this list.92.24.179.239 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Since roughly half the revenue from films comes from ancillary rights (home video/streaming/TV) it is questionable that Birds of Prey will even lose money, let alone lose the 75 mil that would earn it a place on this list. If it does end up losing in excess of $75 million or is projected as doing so, it will be added as soon as we have a source to attest to that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- This does bring up a fair question I was going to ask when I looked at this table the other day. Obviously, we can get sources on the weekend of release of a film that predict it as a bomb (for BoP: [3] for example), but would it not make sense to at least wait until perhaps post 2nd week to find sources to make sure that the "bomb" label still applies? And assuming a film has a turn around say from international release, I assume we should pull that and document that on the talk page so that people don't go adding it back because they found the source at the time of release and not the newer numbers? --Masem (t) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully early loss projections will be updated further down the line, but it isn't always necessary if the film ends up grossing what analysts projected it would. For example, the loss projection for Call of the Wild is based on it grossing $150 million worldwide. If that is what it ends up doing then the projection will essentially be accurate, and there may well be no further reports on its losses. However, if the final tally goes substantially over that (say by 10% or more) then the projection no longer really applies. With something like Dolittle there is a massive margin of error i.e. 50–100 mil, so pinning that one down could mean either a 60 mil loss or a 90 mil loss. I think probably a case-by-case approach is probably best for the article. Given the nature of the article (projections) and the secretive nature of Hollywood accounting this article will never nail its subject with pinpoint accuracy. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- This does bring up a fair question I was going to ask when I looked at this table the other day. Obviously, we can get sources on the weekend of release of a film that predict it as a bomb (for BoP: [3] for example), but would it not make sense to at least wait until perhaps post 2nd week to find sources to make sure that the "bomb" label still applies? And assuming a film has a turn around say from international release, I assume we should pull that and document that on the talk page so that people don't go adding it back because they found the source at the time of release and not the newer numbers? --Masem (t) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Failwords
do Bloodshot and Onward qualiffy to be on the list Fanoflionking 18:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think we are in unprecedented times as far as the movie business goes. We are going to have to just wait and see how it all plays out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Any doubt Dark Phoenix should be box office bomb?
Dark Phoenix is currently listed as one of the top 100 bombs, but attempts to include the term box office bomb on the page are being prevented by a couple users. im pretty new, so therefore new to differences of opinion as well as differences between pages. if its listed here then it seems logical it should have the term on its page also.
Can anyone provide any input?ToeFungii (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any doubt that Dark Phoenix is a bomb. It lost about $100 million (either slightly more or slightly less depending on which source you go with, but a vast sum either way) and there are plenty of high quality reliable sources referring to it as a bomb (such as The Hollywood Reporter and Variety). It is factually, demonstrably and verifiably a bomb which is why it is listed here. But ultimately a local consensus at one article does not transfer to another article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. A dispute regarding a claim or phrasing at Dark Phoenix (film) cannot be settled on this talk page. I suggest you start a discussion on the other article talk page and make your case there, backed up by evidence and see where it gets you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thank you betty, your information is fantastic. im looking at doing either 3rd opinion or rfc on its talk page but wanted to get some independent input regarding if it was fairly conclusive it was a box office bomb. i had found several links talking about it as well as having looked at the ones here but before doing all the additional reading i need to in order to figure out how to build a consensus i was hoping for someone like you to offer some guidance. i especially appreciate the info about because one page is one way doesnt equal the same on another page as that is new information to me. hopfully over the weekend ill have time to put something together. ToeFungii (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Make sure you start with opening discussion on the film's talk page first. Point to RSes that call it a bomb, eg [4], [5], [6] (especially as Disney's Iger specifically points to the film as underpinning some of its losses during the summer quarter last year), as a first step in dispute resolution. --Masem (t) 03:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help to everyone. I've placed the info on its talk page. I'd welcome any input there. I think bomb should be acceptable although it's been reverted multiple times, but the dollar figures I think may be problematic because they are estimates.Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)#Add that Dark Phoenix was a Box-office bomb? ToeFungii (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Rfc: Was Dark Phoenix a box office bomb
There is a rfc regarding whether Dark Phoenix should have language that includes that it was a box office bomb.
Comment on the rfc here: Was Dark Phoenix a box office bomb.
ToeFungii (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Cleopatra
Shouldn't 1960s Cleopatra or Julie Andrews STAR be also on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelkin800 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cleopatra eventually broke even but Star may be eligible. We'd need a source for it though. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Mulan
Though news reports that the film bombed at the box office, even in China, Forbes claimed that it was a VOD hit. This is why I am reluctant to dump it on this list. What do you think, should it be listed?
- Despite their working relationship with the Chinese government during production of the film, Disney’s live-action Mulan remake has bombed in its opening weekend in China.
- Mulan is outright bombing in China, having earned $8.27 million on Saturday, just 5% from its mediocre $7.9 million Friday gross.
- Disney's Mulan has racked up dismal advance ticket sales for its opening day in China, making it likely that the live-action remake will bomb at mainland box office.
- The situation is not looking up for Mulan in China with a Saturday that saw a small 11% increase versus Friday.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.220.45 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 September 2020
Trimmed List
The trimmed list here is very detailed - 4 films on there have adjusted losses of less that $75! Has someone missed/removed the x000,000 from them? 194.28.127.52 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- The main article was overhauled to remove the trailing zeroes. Some of these films have since been copied over but the trimmed list hasn't been brought into line yet. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Archives
@Betty Logan:, I just archived some old and inactive threads from 2018/2019 and the size was a massive 190kB. This page, however, is still a chunky 50+kB. There are a couple sections, with lists and tables that you and I marked as "keep / do not archive", at the top of this page, numbered;
- 1 Trimmed list
- 2 Other flops with unknown losses
- 2.1 Filmsite.org
These are now several years old, do we still need them? Or can they now be archived as well? If you want to keep them, (or something similar) and would like some help updating, just let me know. Cheers - wolf 07:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do update the list from time to time. It could probably do with shortening because nothing under 60 mil adjusted is ever getting on the main list. I am very busy this week but I will take a look next week. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Justice League vs. Waterworld
If Justice League is on the list despite Forbes saying they may have broken even on home release then how come Waterworld gets a pass? Zomgrose (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Zomgrose: can you provide a link for the Forbes source? Thanks - wolf 04:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
|
|---|
- Thank you, Zomgrose, but be careful using Forbes as a source. The magazine is ok, but per WP:RSP, the online edition; forbes.com, is a problem. While both your sources are forbes.com, the first is by a staff writer, meaning their reliability varies depending on the subject and info provide by the source, and your second ref is only by a contributor which makes the source unreliable. With that said, what changes do you propose be made to the list, and are they still supported by the sources you've cited here, given the info you've now been provided? - wolf 06:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The reference Article for Justice League being a bomb is also from Forbes though. My suggestion is if you can't use these articles to compare Waterworld & Justice League maybe Justice League be removed entirely. Zomgrose (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your sources do not back up what you claim, Zomgrose. You are advancing WP:Original research. Yes, Justice League went on to make $100 million on DVD/Blue-ray but the source in the article factors in home entertainment sales of $170 million. I don't have a problem with Scott Mendelson (he's a quite a good analyst) but your sources do not contest the notion that Justice League was a bomb: Mendelson states "it won't be the biggest money loser. Hell, after post-theatrical (give or take an extended cut) it may well break even." Hardly a rigorous detailed analysis contesting that Justice League lost money. This Deadline article estimates Justice League lost $60 million, which is consistent with the $50–100 million estimate listed here. Nobody knows how much it lost, but pretty much all the published analysis estimates it lost tens of millions of dollars. The situation is not analagous to Waterworld, at least not yet. Waterworld was hugely successful on video at a time that the video format was booming; home video is currently in the doldrums. A decade ago films were grossing more on DVD than they were in theaters, now they only make a fraction of their theatrical gross. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Small nit, but we should be moving away from Forbes Contributors sites as they are no longer considered reliable (see WP:RS/P). I'm sure a better source can be found to support Betty's argument here though. --Masem (t) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Masem:, wp:rsp and the problem with Forbes is linked and noted, in detail, above. The source is being cited here by user:Zomgrose, as part of an edit request. Betty Logan acknowledged it, but while explaining the problems with Zomgrose's proposed edits. FYI - wolf 17:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Small nit, but we should be moving away from Forbes Contributors sites as they are no longer considered reliable (see WP:RS/P). I'm sure a better source can be found to support Betty's argument here though. --Masem (t) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your sources do not back up what you claim, Zomgrose. You are advancing WP:Original research. Yes, Justice League went on to make $100 million on DVD/Blue-ray but the source in the article factors in home entertainment sales of $170 million. I don't have a problem with Scott Mendelson (he's a quite a good analyst) but your sources do not contest the notion that Justice League was a bomb: Mendelson states "it won't be the biggest money loser. Hell, after post-theatrical (give or take an extended cut) it may well break even." Hardly a rigorous detailed analysis contesting that Justice League lost money. This Deadline article estimates Justice League lost $60 million, which is consistent with the $50–100 million estimate listed here. Nobody knows how much it lost, but pretty much all the published analysis estimates it lost tens of millions of dollars. The situation is not analagous to Waterworld, at least not yet. Waterworld was hugely successful on video at a time that the video format was booming; home video is currently in the doldrums. A decade ago films were grossing more on DVD than they were in theaters, now they only make a fraction of their theatrical gross. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- The reference Article for Justice League being a bomb is also from Forbes though. My suggestion is if you can't use these articles to compare Waterworld & Justice League maybe Justice League be removed entirely. Zomgrose (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Zomgrose, but be careful using Forbes as a source. The magazine is ok, but per WP:RSP, the online edition; forbes.com, is a problem. While both your sources are forbes.com, the first is by a staff writer, meaning their reliability varies depending on the subject and info provide by the source, and your second ref is only by a contributor which makes the source unreliable. With that said, what changes do you propose be made to the list, and are they still supported by the sources you've cited here, given the info you've now been provided? - wolf 06:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion then is to use the Deadline reference instead of forbes reference. Zomgrose (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
https://deadline.com/2018/04/ready-player-one-steven-spielberg-opening-weekend-box-office-1202318581/ Zomgrose (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objections to Deadline as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Covid-19
- Should Covid-19 Bombs or have a seperate list?
Should any film released in 2020 & possibly 2021 be considered a bomb? I noticed Tenet was on here but is it fair to call it a bomb? Maybe we could make a separate list because Mulan, New Mutants, Tenet, Onward & Wonder Woman 1984 have or will have failed to make money or break even but the ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic films I think should be it's own entity. Zomgrose (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to be taking personal offense at movies you like, (or starring actors/characters you're a fan of), being referred to as 'bombs'. This is just about numbers... verifiable numbers. If a movie loses enough money, it's considered a bomb. It may be a coincidence that, the films you've mentioned above may have lost money, also happen to all suck.
But it is worth somehow noting, perhaps with an asterisk, any film that was produced and/or released during the pandemic. I'm sure plenty of film guides from 2021 onwards will have them (*) as well. There's no mention of Covid is this article yet, but perhaps that's worth considering? (Betty Logan?) - wolf 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Suck" is a subjective term. Alot of movies I mentioned I'm not even that big a fan of.
Asterisk idea is a good one. Zomgrose (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- That was, for the most, just a joke. Wether a movie "sucks" or not is almost entirely subjective, and based on personal preference, though we can use critical response and monetary returns as a guide. - wolf 08:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is just an alphabetic list so there is no need for a secondary list. An asterisk could work, at least for now because it is clear cut, but I am wondering what will happen down the line? It is unlikely there will be a "boom" where everything is suddenly back to normal, but rather a slow process over a year or two. When would the asterisk stop? Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, if it ever gets back to the way it was (and I really hope it does), it'll take time, as in; changing shades of grey, not just black and then suddenly white. That said, there will be a time when theaters are back to normal, summer blockbusters will hit high-9 and 10-figure box office returns and reliable sources will say things like: "we haven't seen profits like this since pre-covid days" and: "it looks like the covid days are behind us". Until then, releases and returns will be atypical (or abnormal) due to covid and sources will say as much and that's where we can tack on the asterisks. JMHO - wolf 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- I still think it's worth separating those movies from the rest. Unlike the other movies on the list, they were released on streaming services at the same time as they were put in theaters, and as such theatrical revenue is not the only metric by which their financial performance should be measured. Wonder Woman 1984 premiered on HBO Max the same day it was released in theaters, and one was one of the most successful movies on that streaming service; to truly assess whether it lost money, revenue from HBO Max would need to be added in too. This isn't the same as a movie flopping in theaters and then finding success years later on home video. In this case, the movie's initial release consisted of both a theatrical and non-theatrical component, and it should be assessed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is just an alphabetic list so there is no need for a secondary list. An asterisk could work, at least for now because it is clear cut, but I am wondering what will happen down the line? It is unlikely there will be a "boom" where everything is suddenly back to normal, but rather a slow process over a year or two. When would the asterisk stop? Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- That was, for the most, just a joke. Wether a movie "sucks" or not is almost entirely subjective, and based on personal preference, though we can use critical response and monetary returns as a guide. - wolf 08:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Suck" is a subjective term. Alot of movies I mentioned I'm not even that big a fan of.
The LEGO Movie 2
Why is The LEGO Movie 2 on the list? More specifically, the Forbes article that it links to. The article in question does not mention how much money the movie actually lost, only that it underperformed. Therefore, the statement on the that The LEGO Movie 2 lost between $80-133 million is unsourced. The other link provided for the movie, its Box Office Mojo page, does not give any information on its status as a box-office bomb. Unless a verifiable source can be found regarding how much money-- if any -- the movie lost, it should be left off this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have removed the entry; as you correctly point out the source does not back up the claim. To answer your specific question it was added a couple of months ago by a random IP: [7]. The list is pretty well maintained and normally uncorroborated edits are caught and reverted, but my guess is that this was missed because it looked legit. Good catch. Betty Logan (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The best I can see calling it a bomb - and this is trying to get it off opening weekend - is from a March 2019 Screen Rant article [8] and I tend to not put much value in SR due to their tendancy to be overly sarcastict. BOM clearly shows this was in the black ($192M against a $99M budget [9]) so I think its just cynical reporters that didn't like the second film wanting to see it fail, calling it a bomb. And thus it can't go on here. --Masem (t) 05:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- At best, it barely broke even. Assuming the typical "55% of the gross goes to the studio" thing is true here, then a total of $105 million would have gone back to the studio against a $99 million budget-- a very small profit, and certainly not what Warner Bros. was hoping for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- The best I can see calling it a bomb - and this is trying to get it off opening weekend - is from a March 2019 Screen Rant article [8] and I tend to not put much value in SR due to their tendancy to be overly sarcastict. BOM clearly shows this was in the black ($192M against a $99M budget [9]) so I think its just cynical reporters that didn't like the second film wanting to see it fail, calling it a bomb. And thus it can't go on here. --Masem (t) 05:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are movies with Grosses GREATER than budget included? These movies actually made money!
This page is a mess. I wonder if a column sort went badly. There are numerous movies listed where the loss is not even close to Worldwide Gross minus Net Production Budget. Many movies currently show a large profit using Gross minus cost but still show a loss in the loss column.
Some major corrective surgery to this page is needed. Right now the list is frustratingly meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernerjc1 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Bernerjc1: did you read the full page? You can't just look at the table and use a simple 'X is less or greater than Y' equation. There are other factors taken into account, such as promotional costs, for example. All the entries on the list are sourced, and the page has been curated for over a decade by many editors, several of them quite experienced in this subject area. - wolf 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, had Bernerjc1 read the second paragraph the list would not be "meaningless". Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- While that is an explanation, I find it quite odd that looking at a few examples:
- Justice League: Budget: 300, Worldwide Gross: 657, Loss: 100. If you check the BO link, it shows Dosmetic Gross: 200. (300 - 200 = 100)
- Transformers Last Knight: Budget ~215, Worldwide Gross: 650, Loss: 100. Again, BO Dosmetic lists Domestic Gross of ~120 (220 - 120 = 100)
- Green Lantern: Budget: 200, Worldwide Gross: 215, Loss: 85. BO Domestic Gross: 115 (200-115 = 85)
- To me, it sounds like we have Net Production and Worldwide Gross, while the LOSS column is calculated by [Net Production - Domestic Gross]. Obviously, if you're going to show one value, and then make a result based on another value... You're going to have some confusion. While this might just be some close coincidences between the three I picked randomly...that's rather uncanny.199.91.241.232 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- (is that you, Bernerjc1?) - So, you believe the list is calculated by a straight subtraction of Gross Domestic Box Office from the Reported Budget? (with no other factors...?) It appears you've found 3 coincidences out of 120 entries. Have you tried your equation on the other 117 entries? Or better yet, read the article in full, to learn how the calculations are made? That, and of course, read all the attached sources that provide all the numbers and confirm that all these films, including your examples, were indeed financial bombs? (and by "bombs", I mean the absolute worst box office losers in HW history.)
Again, you can't just subtract the budget from the WWBO and call that the film's final number. What you don't see in that budget, for example, is the film's promotional costs, which for the types of blockbusters you've named, can run into tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. What you don't see in the WWBO, for example, is what the theater chains get, which can be much as 30 or 40% or more. Then there's all kinds of others factors, many that are kept in strict secrecy. Take a look at Film budgeting and Hollywood accounting for more info.
And finally, try this an example; JL's budget was 300M. Add say, 200M in promo costs, now you're at 500M. The WWBO was 650M. But the theaters get (again, say) 200M out of that, so the WW gross is actually only 450M. Now they're at a loss of 50M. Add in other unknown and/or unforseen costs and that loss can easily climb from 50M to 100M or more in losses. (Which is what right around what has been reported for JL.) Hollywood accountants use more than just elementary arithmetic, they use statistics and algebra. Have a nice day - wolf 02:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- In the case of Transformers the loss figure is actually provided by Bob Bakish, CEO of Viacom (owner of Paramount): "Bakish congratulated Paramount for a successful turnaround, using the latest in the Transformers franchise as an example: Bumblebee, he said, is "solidly profitable" while its predecessor in the summer of 2017 lost more than $100 million." In many cases the sources does state what factors are taken into account in determining the loss. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Might I suggest adding some type of indicator (not colorizing, but as a footnote indicator) to distinguish between loss numbers that are directly reported, compared to the loss numbers that are made by CALC from reported take less reported budget? And make some type of header above the table to explain that losses are either from direct reports or from this calculation "as indicated" (depending on which way you go with it). That will help alleviate this question. --Masem (t) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- That could work. - wolf 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Might I suggest adding some type of indicator (not colorizing, but as a footnote indicator) to distinguish between loss numbers that are directly reported, compared to the loss numbers that are made by CALC from reported take less reported budget? And make some type of header above the table to explain that losses are either from direct reports or from this calculation "as indicated" (depending on which way you go with it). That will help alleviate this question. --Masem (t) 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- In the case of Transformers the loss figure is actually provided by Bob Bakish, CEO of Viacom (owner of Paramount): "Bakish congratulated Paramount for a successful turnaround, using the latest in the Transformers franchise as an example: Bumblebee, he said, is "solidly profitable" while its predecessor in the summer of 2017 lost more than $100 million." In many cases the sources does state what factors are taken into account in determining the loss. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- (is that you, Bernerjc1?) - So, you believe the list is calculated by a straight subtraction of Gross Domestic Box Office from the Reported Budget? (with no other factors...?) It appears you've found 3 coincidences out of 120 entries. Have you tried your equation on the other 117 entries? Or better yet, read the article in full, to learn how the calculations are made? That, and of course, read all the attached sources that provide all the numbers and confirm that all these films, including your examples, were indeed financial bombs? (and by "bombs", I mean the absolute worst box office losers in HW history.)
- While that is an explanation, I find it quite odd that looking at a few examples:
List limits?
@Betty Logan: this entry brings the list total to 120. fyi - wolf 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Cheers, I will have a look at trimming it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: Perhaps raise the minimum loss from $75M to $80M? That would leave off the bottom 21 entries, depending on ranges. (That's another thing I wanted to ask about.) - wolf 11:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking, but we'd actually only drop about ten entries because $50–100m would still be eligible for the list courtesy of the upper-bound figure. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- If the cutoff was $85M, (without ranges) that would make for a nice even 20 entries. (just an observation). Cheers - wolf 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have just re-counted this. Any lower-bound loss of $79 million or over is potentially in the top 100 (101 films). There are an additional 11 films with an upper-bound loss over $79 million, meaning that in total there are a possible 112 films in the top 100. So we could only actually cull 8 films to maintain a top 100, but I think I'd prefer to wait until the threshold inflates to $80 million before doing the cull. Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, agreed. It can wait 'til $80M (or 85). The total certainly isn't urgent, just something I thought I point out to keep an eye on. (Who knows how many more films will flop because of covid...?) I only noticed the enlarged total when looking at the ranges, (mentioned below). Cheers - wolf 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have just re-counted this. Any lower-bound loss of $79 million or over is potentially in the top 100 (101 films). There are an additional 11 films with an upper-bound loss over $79 million, meaning that in total there are a possible 112 films in the top 100. So we could only actually cull 8 films to maintain a top 100, but I think I'd prefer to wait until the threshold inflates to $80 million before doing the cull. Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- If the cutoff was $85M, (without ranges) that would make for a nice even 20 entries. (just an observation). Cheers - wolf 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking, but we'd actually only drop about ten entries because $50–100m would still be eligible for the list courtesy of the upper-bound figure. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Betty Logan: Perhaps raise the minimum loss from $75M to $80M? That would leave off the bottom 21 entries, depending on ranges. (That's another thing I wanted to ask about.) - wolf 11:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ranges
@Betty Logan: I was curious about the ranges that are noted in some of the entries. For example, to see the film with the most losses, (or the biggest bomb"), and after sorting the "adjusted for inflation" column, the current top entry would be Mortal Engines at $178M. But since some of the films have ranges, and those ranges default to the lower value when sorted, John Carter ranks down at 11th place, despite losses of $127-223M. Another example would be 13th Warrior; the budget is noted as a range of $100-160M, which depending on the default, is currently a difference of 36 positions on the list.
These are more extreme examples, and other ranges are smaller, with a lesser, or even negligible, difference on ranking. And I realize that some entries have to have ranges because of that what the sources say. But, why default to the lower number? This is a list of the "biggest", why not default to the higher number, so that with say, the "losses" column, it ranks the films by the biggest possible numbers we know? Cheers - wolf 12:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- It defaults to the lowest figure simply because the lower figure is first in the column, so that is what it sorts on. It's not done by design, it's just a technical thing. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. With that established, what are your thoughts on defaulting to the higher number instead? (The change can be easily made.) It would serve the overall purpose of this list, that being to which extremes these values have gone, whether that's budget or box office (ie: just how big a bomb it was.) I again refer to the John Carter example, some sources say that film is currently the "biggest bomb", so the list should reflect that when ranked via sort. Cheers - wolf 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- In truth I don't really have a strong opinion on it. My honest opinion is that I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense having a column sorting feature for data that includes number ranges, but we do need it to sort the list when culling films from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I added sort markup to default to the higher number. Films with ranges, (ie: John Carter) now rank according to their highest sourced losses. There are other benefits as well, such as it's now easier to cull films from the low end of the list (as it turns out, there are exactly 20 films under the $85M mark and 10 under $80M). Cheers - wolf 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- In truth I don't really have a strong opinion on it. My honest opinion is that I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense having a column sorting feature for data that includes number ranges, but we do need it to sort the list when culling films from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. With that established, what are your thoughts on defaulting to the higher number instead? (The change can be easily made.) It would serve the overall purpose of this list, that being to which extremes these values have gone, whether that's budget or box office (ie: just how big a bomb it was.) I again refer to the John Carter example, some sources say that film is currently the "biggest bomb", so the list should reflect that when ranked via sort. Cheers - wolf 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
ResolvedWe're gonna add Chaos Walking next, because this film have bad rotten tomatoes, grosses $12 million worldwide against its $100 million budget, resulting in a write-down for the studio and got bad reviews that saying it "badly bungles its premise and limps toward the finish." MLJ 657 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Reviews and RT ratings have noting to do with this list, (with exception of a review that states the film was a "box office bomb"... that could be helpful) but even then, this is about the numbers. A film could have great reviews and even an RT rating of 90%+, but if there are sourced losses of USD$80M or more (the current threshold for the list)... that is when a film gets added. - wolf 06:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Wonder Woman 1984 should not be on this list.
As it is an HBO MAX exclusive, it should not be included on the biggest box office bombs. CageToRattle (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is a list of films that have lost $75 million or more, so if a film loses that much money it belongs on the list. If its HBO income turns it profitable then it will be removed as and when. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, to be pendatic, this is a list of box office bombs - with the added criteria of films that have lost $75m or more to avoid hundreds of smaller films that also bombed. That means there should be a source that says a film is a BO bomb or dud or similar term, and that doesn't seem to be the case easily shown for WW84 (likely because they know the HBO Max numbers factor into the revenue but impossible quantify). --Masem (t) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we should become too anal-retentive about the actual labeling. The source does firmly position the film's huge financial losses within the context of its box-office performance. Many of the films on here have had significant secondary revenue streams: a decade ago the DVD market was larger than the theatrical market before the bottom dropped out. What we are essentially trying to document is primarily theatrical films that have lost money, as opposed to TV/streaming films that don't have a conventional financial model (one example being The Irishman). I don't think there is any doubt here that Wonder Woman is principally a theatrical film that has lost a huge sum of money, although there is a major secondary revenue stream that may turn that around. If another source comes along that says HBO turned Wonder Woman profitable, or it only ends up losing 50 mil I absolutely agree it should come off the list. Betty Logan (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, to be pendatic, this is a list of box office bombs - with the added criteria of films that have lost $75m or more to avoid hundreds of smaller films that also bombed. That means there should be a source that says a film is a BO bomb or dud or similar term, and that doesn't seem to be the case easily shown for WW84 (likely because they know the HBO Max numbers factor into the revenue but impossible quantify). --Masem (t) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is "News of the World" not listed?
According to Wikipedia itself: "In the film and media industry, if a film released in theatres fails to break even by a large amount, it is considered a box office bomb (or box office flop), thus losing money for the distributor, studio, and/or production company that invested in it." List of biggest box-office bombs
Whether the critics loved it or not, this movie did not even make back even half of its estimated budget. So, it was a "flop." Why is that not mentioned?Mwidunn (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mwidunn: This is the list of the "biggest" bombs (can't list them all). To keep it manageable, the list has a cut-off; only films that have lost $75 million or more are currently listed. - wolf 00:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
False numbers
@Betty Logan: wrt the edit summary of your recent revert, there indeed appears to be some targeted disruption taking place. When I recently noted a troubled attempt to add an entry for The Nutcracker and the Four Realms by an IP user, I corrected it, but then removed it when I noticed the numbers on one of the refs did not match up. It turns out that same IP user altered the film's article as well. Just yesterday they also changed the numbers for both the budget and box office at Cinderella (2015 Disney film), and also added bogus claims to the article's content. (FYI) - wolf 22:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about List of biggest box-office bombs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
In the Heights and Reminiscence
In the Heights had a $55 million budget, made $43,879,041 worldwide, and has a break-even point of $200,000,000. Reminiscence had a budget of $54–68 million, made $11,192,816 worldwide and has a break-even point of $110 million.
--Fladoodle (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that The Last Duel should be added. It bombed, grossing almost $30 million against a $100 million budget. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- We'll keep an eye out for it, but ultimately we need somebody to report how much money was lost on it. We've only just added Chaos Walking to the list for this reason. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of content
CageToRattle has removed Wonder Woman 1984 on several occasions now, because he disagrees with the appraisal that it has lost money. Regardless of the merits of his argument this is simply not our call to make; it is not our appraisal it has lost money, but the appraisal of The Hollywood Reporter and The Numbers. It is true that Wonder Woman 1984 played simultaneously on HBO Max which in turn impacted its performance at the box-office, but this is not a concern for this list. This list is simply a list of films that have lost the most money, as appraised by industry sources and analysts.
Films streamed on subscription based services don't have a traditional income stream: this issue was recently at the heart of the lawsuit Scarlett Johansson filed against Disney who had a gross points in Black Widow. In this scenario Black Widow was turned into a "loss-leader" for the streaming service, and it is likely this is true for Wonder Woman 1984. But here is the key point: if Wonder Woman 1984 was re-positioned as a loss-leader it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to determine that loss-leaders should be excluded from such a list! It is up to industry writers and analysts to reframe their commentary on what constitutes a loss. As it stands, The Numbers currently has Wonder Woman 1984] down as the second-biggest money-loser (bottom chart) and that is what matters as far as we are concerned. Mulan is next on the list and was also in a similar situation to Wonder Woman and Black Widow.
If sources did not regard these films as "flops/bombs/money-losers" then we would not either. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to disagree with sources and manipulate content accordingly; that is WP:Original research. On a wider point I have noticed that CageToRattle has also removed content from other articles where he personally disagrees with the inclusion of the list entry, regardless of the sourcing. This needs to stop; editorial judgment does not alone trump reliable sources that adopt a contradictory opinion, and blanking content you disagree with is disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
355
"The 355" states it has a loss of $93 million, but the budget was $40 -$75 million, with a worldwide gross of $27.7 million. The actual loss would be $12.3 - 47.3 million, not $93 million. The $93 million appears to be the sum of the $75 million upper bound budget and the worldwide gross of $27.7 million rounded down. I would fix it myself, but I have no idea how to even begin to fix it in the table without braking the entire table.
2601:742:8101:B760:718A:6E9B:480C:1E5E (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
A Procrastinating Wanderer
- According to the source the loss is calculated from expenses of $103 million (including $75 million production costs) and income of $10 million (based on global box-office of $19 million), so a loss of $93 million is correctly calculated based on the figures The Numbers uses. Obviously you would arrive at a different figure if the lower estimate for the budget was accurate but it's not our place to second guess the source unless the figures they based their calculations on are demonstrably incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
We're just going to think about adding Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , because this film bombed and have the worst lowest opening of the Wizarding World and it's grossed only $379 million against a $200 million budget. MLJ 657 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- It marking was also a futher $21 million acrodding to it pages and now gross $389 million 92.236.253.249 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Another new addition
Wouldn't be a big time to add Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore because it's bombed with 400.8 million against a $200 Millon budget with further 21 million. I think we might add it on the list as well. MLJ 657 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors don't decide when it's time to add a film to the list. Films are added when relaible sources determine how much they will lose. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Lightyear
Lightyear is now being considered the third flop from Pixar.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:A004:25F7:84D0:5DAC:9523:1909 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rubin, Rebecca. "Box Office: Pixar's 'Lightyear' Underwhelms With $51 Million Debut as 'Jurassic World' Stays No. 1". Penske Media Corporation. Variety. Retrieved 29 June 2022.
Bros
Bros made 4 million of its 22 million budget. Please add it to the list. 2601:41:C080:2E20:512C:FA88:216F:E40A (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- The list covers the top 100 box-office bombs. Bros is a box-office bomb, but it is not top 100. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Added icon for films with simultaneous streaming release
I decided to "be bold" and added an icon (§) to represent films that were released at the same time, or nearly the same time, on a streaming service as in the theaters. (I somewhat arbitrarily set it to be "streamed less than 30 days after its theatrical release" in order to handle Onward, which in the United States got its streaming release two weeks after its theatrical release.) This should hopefully alleviate some of the controversy about the inclusion of some of the COVID-era films. And maybe it will enable the inclusion of Turning Red, which according to The Numbers is not just a box-office bomb but the biggest bomb of all time, with a $167 million loss. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Generally I am ok with the note because I think it does have some impact on the reported losses. However, I don't think it is correct to imply revenue from streaming is completely excluded. Many of the projected losses here factor in more than just box-office. For example, all the profit and loss figures taken from The Numbers are "based on domestic and international box office earnings and domestic video sales, extrapolated to estimate worldwide income to the studio, after deducting retail costs." It's not clear how that works in the case of streaming. For example, Netflix might purchase a film for a set fee which will probably count as revenue towards the film, but the film will not generate "box office" for each viewing. The fee may even be variable based on the number of hits it gets. We simply don't know. So I think it's ok to mark out the special cases, but we shouldn't be making assumptions about how streaming income is handled. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing up the icons, and I'm glad you agree it makes sense. The wording in the intro about streaming revenues is probably enough to explain the situation. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What makes it more complicated is that many streaming services, such as Disney+, are now owned by movie studios, which means the studios can release a movie on their own streaming service at no cost to themselves. And some of these movies-- Turning Red, Space Jam: A New Legacy, and Wonder Woman: 1984, to name only three-- did very well their respective studio-owned streaming services. While it is certainly true that these movies did not earn their budgets back in theaters, and indeed fell far short of doing so, they were considered successful by their studios because their streaming releases more than compensated for that.
- Given that they were released simultaneously in theaters and on streaming services, these movies were not necessarily required to earn back their budgets in theaters in order to be "successful". Calling them box-office bombs, while technically correct, feels more than a little unfair, since it essentially means holding them up to the same standard as movies released in theaters alone. 68.71.166.188 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we have tried to highlight the playing field is not a level one for these films, but we are ultimately limited by what is reported. Eventually, the industry press is going to have to reappraise what it means to be a bomb. With streaming we are going to get to the point where a film could "lose" $100 million but is regarded as a success in the sense of the perceived value it has added to the streaming service. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would think that as long as this is a list of "box office bombs", we can continue to list films that do poorly at the box office, regardless of streaming numbers. This may be difficult if the industry continues to obscure film finances, and now use profits from streaming to hide losses at the box office, so we'll just have to hope that we can continue to find sourcing. (jmho) - wolf 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we have tried to highlight the playing field is not a level one for these films, but we are ultimately limited by what is reported. Eventually, the industry press is going to have to reappraise what it means to be a bomb. With streaming we are going to get to the point where a film could "lose" $100 million but is regarded as a success in the sense of the perceived value it has added to the streaming service. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing up the icons, and I'm glad you agree it makes sense. The wording in the intro about streaming revenues is probably enough to explain the situation. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Black Adam
@DougheGojiraMan: You need to stop removing this, it's a sourced entry, and there are several other sources that state this film lost money at the box office. Just because one article (and The Rock's twitter account... seriously?) claim the film "might" make enough profit in the future via streaming and tv fees, (in other words; not at the box office) is not sufficient justification for removal. Read the lead of this article, and then read WP:RS (actually, you should read that second one before you edit anything on Wikipedia). - wolf 01:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Importantly this article [10] is a projection of the film's total take, not yet confirmed because of overseas. So we can't use estimates for this. Masem (t) 01:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Fair fair fair DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Escape From Planet Earth
I found out the budget is 40 Million dollars and the box office is 74.6 Million dollars, is it a hit or a flop. P.S. it came out in 2013 173.238.231.70 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
A Man Called Otto
This Movie Budget is $50 million and it only made $18.7 million, and it considers a Box Office Bomb 173.238.231.70 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't Look Up
If everyone didn't notice but There's a Box Office Bomb based on real life, Don't Look Up (film) (2021). While I searching randomly, this movie cost 75 million dollars to make and it only grossed 791,296 dollars, the reason why It's because it's only shown in Australia... ouch. 173.238.231.70 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I believe that film was only given the brief theatrical release so that it would qualify for awards such as the Oscars (see here). Films that are bought by a streaming service and intentionally given a limited theatrical release are not the same as "box office bombs". - wolf 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yet we include films like Turning Red included. We use a special mark to indicate these works that were released to streaming services either as their only route or day-and-date as theatrical releases. However, we do want a third-party source to call it a box-office bomb (as there is sourcing for Turning Red) and not just our read of the numbers. Masem (t) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the key point here though is that Netflix financed Don't Look Up under a streaming model. The financial equation simply doesn't apply to subscription based streaming services because the primary metric for judging its success will be the number of customers who streamed it. Turning Red on the other hand was conceived for a theatrical release and had a theatrical-sized budget to match. I can certainly see the logic here as to why Turning Red is considered a bomb and Don't Look Up isn't. The difficult calls in the future will be hybrid productions—those that have a traditional theatrical roll-out in some markets while being streamed in others. The industry press will have to figure out how to grapple with these definitions, but it won't really affect us: if the sources exist for us to add something to the list then we will add it, if they don't then we can't. What does and does not qualify as a "bomb" is beyond our remit as Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the key factor of this list is "box office bombs", and it should focus on that; films that were created for and released in theaters and were either financially successful at the box office or they weren't, and if they weren't then they need to have sourcing that indicated they were a "bomb", (or failure, loser, etc) and have have losses high enough to warrant inclusion here (currently $80M). A movie could be created for a streaming release and possibly not meet the expectations of the streaming service, (maybe even to the point of being their equivalent of a bomb), but that doesn't make it a "box office bomb". (imho) - wolf 00:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think the key point here though is that Netflix financed Don't Look Up under a streaming model. The financial equation simply doesn't apply to subscription based streaming services because the primary metric for judging its success will be the number of customers who streamed it. Turning Red on the other hand was conceived for a theatrical release and had a theatrical-sized budget to match. I can certainly see the logic here as to why Turning Red is considered a bomb and Don't Look Up isn't. The difficult calls in the future will be hybrid productions—those that have a traditional theatrical roll-out in some markets while being streamed in others. The industry press will have to figure out how to grapple with these definitions, but it won't really affect us: if the sources exist for us to add something to the list then we will add it, if they don't then we can't. What does and does not qualify as a "bomb" is beyond our remit as Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yet we include films like Turning Red included. We use a special mark to indicate these works that were released to streaming services either as their only route or day-and-date as theatrical releases. However, we do want a third-party source to call it a box-office bomb (as there is sourcing for Turning Red) and not just our read of the numbers. Masem (t) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just a reminder. It was in theaters only in Australia just 21 days before it officially came into streaming on Netflix globally. 173.238.231.70 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's actually at U.S.A. not Australia. On December 5th 2021, it's released only in New York, U.S.A. On December 10th 2021, it's released only in U.S.A. Finally on December 15th 2021, It's released on Netflix globally 173.238.231.70 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
New additions
Wouldn't it be time to add Chaos Walking and Snake Eyes?
Snake Eyes has a break even point of at least $160m, but it has earned only $35m WW. This translates to a loss of $125m
Chaos Walking has a Budget of $100m and has earned only $22m. At best this is a net loss of $78m, and this number disregards other costs, which would possibly push it past $80m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e08:698b:7dc7:f3f0:a842:d1b (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- As these are still relatively new films and still in theaters, it would be too early to include them. --Masem (t) 04:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- According to Box Office Mojo, Chaos Walking ended it's theatrical run on May 13th 2021, after 10 weeks. While it's true that Snake Eyes has only finished 4 weeks of its theatrical run, it has had a very weak staying power and a low overseas turnout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e08:698b:891:db0a:f9a3:3ffe (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
RESPECT was a huge flop but no one wants to say why Blacks stayed away in droves. TruthCounts1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Respect only lost about $22M, far below the level of inclusion for this list. We don't consider why there are box office losses for films. Masem (t) 18:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
News outlets have said that this movie flopped at the box office, so should this movie be added to this page? Thanks. :) Mattgelo (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Only if it meets the numerical threshold of $85 million and we can source it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Chill Factor
I believe Chill Factor's inclusion on the Top 100 list is an error. Its own Wikipedia page and every source I can find on it list its production budget as half of what is written on this chart, and the source used here doesn't seem wholly reputable to me. If it is an error, it should be taken off and a runner-up should be put in (btw, Reminiscence has a couple of publications that say it needed $110 million to break even, and it grossed $16m- should be enough for the list, no?) Claystripe (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Several publications put the budget at $70 million. If this correct then on the basis of the source provided it would potentially rank among the top 100 money-losing films. It's not the place of editors to second guess sources, unless they are demonstrably proven to be wrong. Even if we could ascertain that the source is incorrect about the budget—thereby negating its place in the list—this would not result in restoring The Cotton Club to the list, which remains below the $85 million threshold. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Doubt about Moonfall
In the ranking I see Moonfall (2022) with an estimated cost of 138M and a gross of 44M for a total loss of 138M. However the final gross of the film was 67M thanks to the release in China several months later, in this case can someone update it and redo the calculations? 146.241.29.200 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you refer to the source for the loss you will see it is calculated from a worldwide gross of $59 million (including the China gross). This only equates to $8 million less than $67 million, which based on a 25% return would only reduce the projected loss by $2 million. Based on that it would still easily rank in the top 100 money-losers, so I see no basis for removing it from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah ok it wasn't clear before, and don't worry I wasn't proposing the removal. Thanks for the answer 146.241.29.200 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Ghost in the Shell 2017 should meet the criteria of the proper list
ResolvedGitS is all but confirmed to have lost more than "at least $60M" and that projected 60+ million loss was if it made 200 million. It made 169.8 million. Secondly this: "Some sources even assert that the production cost for Ghost is far north of $110M and more in the $180M range — if that’s the case, Ghost is bleeding in excess of $100M." https://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/
A trade stated that a loss of 100 million was in play, with 2017 money, and we know that a loss of more than 60 million was easily achieved as shown by me. Tenet made the main list with a similar range. If it made it then so did GitS with a range of 60 - 100+ million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.37 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for raising the issue, we will look into it. It's not a perfect list, we are aware there are omissions, it's just a case of finding the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Lead section is too long
Since we already have an article about Box-office bomb, I don't see why there needs to be a rewritten summary of this in the lead. The lead should focus on the list's content, and scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Some of the info is "this is why you will find films on this list" (like the COVID impact) or why you won't find certain films on this list (like Cleopatra). The separate BOB article doesn't cover all these facets that make more sense in presence of the list. Masem (t) 03:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem, the lead provides valuable context for how a film qualifies for the list, and has evolved out of common questions we sometimes get on the talk page i.e. how a film can still be a flop if it grosses more than its budget and so on. I have seen featured lists with more prose than this. I don't see how it's an issue, unless you have suggestions for what should be excised. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can add a section header to the last three paragraphs, but I don't know of a good section name, like "Background" doesn't seem right. That would help alleviate the "long lede" problem. Masem (t) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Calculating loss" or something along those lines would be my preference, but I'm board with your suggestion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can add a section header to the last three paragraphs, but I don't know of a good section name, like "Background" doesn't seem right. That would help alleviate the "long lede" problem. Masem (t) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Knights of the Zodiac
The Saint Seiya movie, Knights of the Zodiac, was also a flop. Should it be added here? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Based on its $60M budget and $6.8M take (from the infobox), the loss is only about $50-55M which means that it falls below the threshold of this table which is right now around $85M. Masem (t) 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Table split
In some cases, the estimated loss is imprecise and we have more than estimate. These estimates are represented by ranges. Knowledgekid87 has split the table into two, between those estimates that are represented by a single figure, and those by a range, on the grounds that some of those represented by a range would not qualify for the list under the carefully constructed criteria.
I understand the logic here, but I have a problem with how the split has been executed. I don't oppose splitting out films to a secondary table on the premise that in the case of their lower-bound estimate they may not be among the top 100, but this is not the case in some of the films. A case in point would be John Carter, which emphatically qualifies for the list under its lower-bound estimate. On that basis I think those films that qualify under the lower-bound estimate should be restored to the primary table. Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see this as an improvement. Having the single, linear table allows for immediate comparison among any and all films. The two different tables serve the same purpose. All entries were defaulted to the highest loss supported by sourcing, which is the point of this list - it's right in the article name.
Splitting the table into two parts, simply based on films with a loss range vs films with a single number is not needed and only serves to diminish the overall value and usefulness of this article, especially as a quick-reference. This also opens the door to additional splits based on other parameters, again diminishing the page further. (JMHO) - wolf 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have a preference for the singular table too, although I appreciate the underlying logic. I wish Knowledgekid87 had proposed this first, since it's a major structural change. I did revert but felt that was discourteous given the amount of work he had put into good-faith edit so undid my revert so we could discuss this further. The main problem I have with it (apart from the issue you highlight that having two tables complicates the comparison) is that some of the biggest bombs of all-time (John Carter, Lone Ranger, Mars needs Moms etc) are now relegated to a secondary table. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you compare the two lists, you will see that these films by some estimates were not the biggest box office bombs of all time. John Carter for example) has a given range of $143–255M which means that by some estimates Mortal Engines with an agreed upon $204M loss would surpass that. Its misleading to say that the estimated top end makes it the "biggest of all time". Same with Lone Ranger... If you take the estimated low of $201M it still falls behind Mortal Engines, but the table does not sort it that way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have a preference for the singular table too, although I appreciate the underlying logic. I wish Knowledgekid87 had proposed this first, since it's a major structural change. I did revert but felt that was discourteous given the amount of work he had put into good-faith edit so undid my revert so we could discuss this further. The main problem I have with it (apart from the issue you highlight that having two tables complicates the comparison) is that some of the biggest bombs of all-time (John Carter, Lone Ranger, Mars needs Moms etc) are now relegated to a secondary table. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with the split. We just need to establish what the sorting logic is for a range v. a single value. (I would go with low-end on ranges for sorting as to be conservative). Masem (t) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- We all seem to oppose the split, and agree that the real issue is the sorting mechanism (although I would point out that the default mode is an alphabetic ordering, so I think that mitigates the neutrality problem to an extent. There are three ways to address the sorting: we sort high or low (they both have their relative merits), or we avoid the issue completely and add a second column for lower and upper-bound losses, allowing readers to choose how they sort. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking of doing that as I did with List of large Holocene volcanic eruptions#Exact year unknown. It would solve the high/low estimate bias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the list the starts the "Before Common Era (BCE)" it is clear those dates are not exact - look how many end on a 0. They can narrow down the timing to a decade, but no narrower. It is clearly a bad split and needs to be restored. Same on this. Masem (t) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking of doing that as I did with List of large Holocene volcanic eruptions#Exact year unknown. It would solve the high/low estimate bias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- We all seem to oppose the split, and agree that the real issue is the sorting mechanism (although I would point out that the default mode is an alphabetic ordering, so I think that mitigates the neutrality problem to an extent. There are three ways to address the sorting: we sort high or low (they both have their relative merits), or we avoid the issue completely and add a second column for lower and upper-bound losses, allowing readers to choose how they sort. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I split the list to go along with a WP:NPOV as right now the losses are sorted by their estimated high end value. Why would splitting up the list have an adverse effect on the article? It makes editing easier with two tables to manage instead of one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- See the question below? The split causes confusion. We can talk about fixing the NPOV by sorting on the upper end, but the split makes maintenance a logistical mess. Masem (t) 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I have re-merged the two tables because it is clear from this discussion that nobody thinks this is the way to address the sorting issue and it is also causing confusion. I am going to start a new discussion to address the sorting issue, so the points are not conflated. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Betty. For anyone else, (K87, Masem, etc.) you'll note awhile back that I changed/added markup so that films with a range for their box office totals defaulted to the higher number in the range (see here). Afterall, this is the list of biggest bombs, so films should be ranked by the biggest sourced losses (imho). Films with ranges are marked, so even if they don't individually slot in to the lower end of the range when sorting, I don't see that as taking away from the quality of the list, or making it in any way confusing for the majority of readers, and not a reason to split the table into multiple tables. That I believe takes away from the quality of the article and leads to confusion. I have read Kk87's comments and don't wish to outright dismiss them. If they, and others, wanted to look at somehow highlighting the films with ranges and perhaps noting the different rankings they could potentially have, that's a discussion that could lead to possible solutions for Kk87's concerns. - wolf 04:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the table sorting issue is a moot point. We can structure the table to sort by both the upper and lower bound (see the mock-up in the section below). It is relative straightforward to implement, and would address any neutrality concerns that Knowledgekid87 has. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Betty. For anyone else, (K87, Masem, etc.) you'll note awhile back that I changed/added markup so that films with a range for their box office totals defaulted to the higher number in the range (see here). Afterall, this is the list of biggest bombs, so films should be ranked by the biggest sourced losses (imho). Films with ranges are marked, so even if they don't individually slot in to the lower end of the range when sorting, I don't see that as taking away from the quality of the list, or making it in any way confusing for the majority of readers, and not a reason to split the table into multiple tables. That I believe takes away from the quality of the article and leads to confusion. I have read Kk87's comments and don't wish to outright dismiss them. If they, and others, wanted to look at somehow highlighting the films with ranges and perhaps noting the different rankings they could potentially have, that's a discussion that could lead to possible solutions for Kk87's concerns. - wolf 04:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Table sorting
Okay, following on from the discussion above, what we have is an incomplete list of films that are potentially among the top 100 money-losers. It is possible that not every film that should be present is on the list. In addition, there are more than 100 films on the list because in some cases there are differing estimates. Conflicting loss estimates are represented by number ranges; in all cases the upper-bound estimate would see the film potentially ranked among the top 100 money-losers, while in many cases the lower-bound estimate would result in it not.
This has resulted in a number of design issues to be consistent with WP:NPOV:
- The hard numerical threshold for the top 100 is in the $90–95 million range (adjusted), so to keep this simple we set the inclusion threshold at an upper-bound loss of $90 million. This goes up slightly each year (last year it was $85 million).
- There are no numerical ranks. It is impossible to know for sure which is the top money-loser, which is the second-biggest and so on.
- In line with the previous point, the default ordering is alphabetic.
The table is sortable, which creates an issue for how to sort losses. We currently sort on the upper-bound estimate. One editor (Knowledgekid87) believes this creates a NPOV issue. So let's consider our options, and the arguments for and against.
- We simply make the table non-sortable – I do not favor this. I think it would make the table less functional and less useful than it could be. I think most readers would prefer to be able to sort the table in such a way that the biggest money-losers are easily retrievable, which requires a sorting mechanism.
- We split out those films represented by a loss range into a second table (per this solution) – Personally I am not a fan; this approach has already caused confusion, and it makes it inherently more difficult to compare the biggest money-losers if they are spread over two tables. It works against the interests of what this page is designed to do.
- We stick with the status quo and sort on the upper-bound estimate – There is an encyclopedic reason for this: the inclusion criteria is "potentially among the top 100 money-losers", and it is the upper-bound estimate that determines it. For example, if you are comparing the biggest money losers, it helps to have John Carter at the top of the table rather than halfway down it. I do not see this as non-neutral because there is no numbering system attached.
- We sort on the lower-bound estimate – This would be a conservative approach that essentially sorts the list by focusing on the amount that each film is reasonably guaranteed to have lost, rather than might have lost. It focuses on factually guaranteed losses, rather than potential losses. However, I do not see this as any more or less encyclopedic than the previous solution since there is no numbering system. From an editorial perspective it would make maintaining the cut-off threshold slightly easier, but I don't think that should be a decisive factor.
- The loss is represented by two columns – Having two columns to represent the upper and a lower-bounds would eliminate the issue completely and allow readers to sort by how they choose. This approach is advocated at Help:Sortable_tables#Numerical_ranges. It would only take an hour or so to implement so it would not be time prohibitive to do.
- [NEW OPTION] – Another option would be two add two sort keys to column. It would keep redundancy to the minimum. I have mocked up a sample below.
I am on board with any of the last four solutions. The first option would be too limiting, and we agree that the second opens up a can of worms. The singular aim of a sortable table is to enable comparison, so we need to be mindful of that. What do readers want out of this article and how do we facilitate that? Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say #4 makes the most sense, followed by #5. I see where #3 is coming from as a form of sorting, though for inclusion, the upper end makes sense. Masem (t) 01:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Mock-up with two sortkeys
| Title | Year | Net production budget (millions) |
Worldwide gross (millions) |
Estimated loss (millions) | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominal | Adjusted for inflation | [nb 1] | |||||
| The 13th Warrior | 1999 | $100–160 | $61.7 | $69–129 | $126–236 | [# 1] | |
| 47 Ronin | 2013 | $175–225 | $151.8 | $96 | $126 | [# 2] | |
| The 355 | 2022 | $40–75 | $27.7 | $93 | $105 | [# 3] | |
| The Adventures of Baron Munchausen | 1988 | $46.6 | $8.1 | $38.5 | $99 | [# 4] | |
| The Adventures of Pluto Nash | 2002 | $100 | $7.1 | $96 | $163 | [# 5] | |
| The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle | 2000 | $76–98.6 | $35.1 | $63.5 | $112 | [# 6] | |
| The Alamo | 2004 | $107 | $25.8 | $94 | $152 | [# 7] | |
| Alexander | 2004 | $155 | $167.3 | $71 | $115 | [# 8] | |
| Ali | 2001 | $107 | $87.7 | $63 | $108 | [# 9] | |
| Allied | 2016 | $85 | $118.6 | $75–90 | $95–114 | [# 10] | |
Misleading to Have Production Budget?
The lead for the section for the table states that the losses include ancillary, marketing, and distribution costs but the table only uses the production budget as a column for the costs. I think this is misleading because simply comparing the total gross and production budget sometimes make a loss confusing and instead there should be a total cost column. For example, the Good Dinosaur has a production budget of $175M-200M and the total gross as $322.2M so the Good Dinosaur should have a profit of $147.2M-122.2M but it supposedly had a loss of $85M nominal. For another example, John Carter is listed with a budget of $263.7M and a total gross of $284.1M so it should have a profit of $20.4M but it's listed as having a loss of $112M-200M nominal. Is there a solution that makes no movie have have a profit when doing calculations? Michael Ly Vietnam (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- We can only provide the information we ourselves have, which unfortunately is usually the gross, the budget and the overall loss. I honestly don't think it's that confusing if you bother to read the lead of the article, which clarifies why a film can still loses money even in cases where the gross exceeds the budget. By the same token you could argue that including the grosses is also misleading because it is not representative of the studio's income from the film. Including the budget and gross is not essential to the article but they do provide readers with a sense of the overall financial scale of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Films to watch (struggling according to sources)
These are assuming the rule of thumb 2.0 to 2.5% in profits. [11]
- Elemental (2023 film) -
- $200M budget -> $400/500M break even
- Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny -
- $295M budget -> $590/$737.5M break even
- Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken -
- $70M budget -> $140/$175M break even
- The Flash (film) -
- $200 to $220M budget -> $400/$440 $500/$550M break even
These break even amounts could be wrong, I am just going by the source per WP:CALC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still in theatres, we gotta wait but these could all go on the list Hungry403 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Shazam: Fury Of The Gods
Over the past few weeks, Shazam 2 box office bomb is trending on Youtube & Tiktok whenever I scrolled. Is it really a Box Office Bomb? Or is it just me? 173.238.231.70 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- The numbers don't look good for it but it's not clear how much it has lost as yet. If one of the Trades can put a figure on the losses then we can consider it for the list then. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Shazam 2 is a certified box office bomb, it lost the studio $150M. It needs to be added to the list. Source: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/4/8hd602v39lpkca2ge6qlihkbl5oxbg#:~:text='Shazam!,the%20DCEU%20and%20Warner%20Bros. Kala7992 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The Fabelmans
The Fabelmans should be added to this page as well. Just like The BFG and West Side Story, its box office results were sour compared to any Spielberg project (grossing $45 million on a $40 million budget.) Don't you all agree? Aeiou13579 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Its box-office was poor but that doesn't necessarily make it a bomb. The BFG and West Side Story were $100 million movies with sizable marketing budgets so they consequently lost a lot of money. The Fabelmans was a $40 million movie, so unless it had a blockbuster sized marketing costs (which it probably didn't have) then it won't have lost enough to make it on to this list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The Flash and Elemental
The Flash and Elemental, both 2023 5.89.159.67 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- They just opened, far too soon to add Masem (t) 19:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree but we should wait for a few weeks Hungry403 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why is The Flash already included but not Elemental? 2601:601:A400:5710:253C:6788:76D4:5E09 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Elemental is no longer a flop, it just crossed the $300M mark and since the studio intends to keep it in theaters until Labour Day its definitely gonna break even, box office analysts projected it could make around $400-$500M in total, a remarkable comeback story. Source: https://collider.com/elemental-global-box-office-311-million/ Kala7992 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Stated budget of $200m not including marketing, right now sitting at $317m 70.57.81.77 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Elemental is no longer a flop, it just crossed the $300M mark and since the studio intends to keep it in theaters until Labour Day its definitely gonna break even, box office analysts projected it could make around $400-$500M in total, a remarkable comeback story. Source: https://collider.com/elemental-global-box-office-311-million/ Kala7992 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Why is The Flash already included but not Elemental? 2601:601:A400:5710:253C:6788:76D4:5E09 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Flash´s lead in text already links back to this article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Flash_(film) I too think that WB deserves the grace of finishing the theatrical run and still have to see a trade put a figure on the projected loss but it is guaranteed to meet the criteria with flying colors. 2023 is a very busy year for flops! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.229 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ruby Gillman
Did this dreamworks movie also bomb hard? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Given that its reported budget is only $70m and it has made half of that, it will be a loss, but too low to be on this table (needs a loss of $85-90m or more to be here). Masem (t) 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken - Dreamworks
It's sad in my opinion that this movie is a box office bomb which is only made 30 million, against 70 million movie budget. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- + It lost around 80 million dollars. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- While that appears to be legit (from the film's page), this list is currently requiring a minimum of $90M loss, since it is impractical to list every box-office bomb in history. Masem (t) 17:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The Flash - Warner Bros & DC
The Flash 2023 has lost around almost 200 Million Dollars when the box office made 226.8 Million$ against 220 million$ budget. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Discussed above at #The Flash. I would be quite surprised if it had lost as much as that. It cost less than the lower-bound estimates for The Lone Ranger and grossed more, so on balance I would say it will probably lose $150 million at most. This is why it is important to wait for figures from a high-quality source. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Why isn't Disney The Black Cauldron 1985 on Biggest Box Office Bombs page?
To the Wikipedia users. I have tried to add The Black Cauldron on here. Can I ask why you're not accepting it? Disney's The Black Cauldron 1985 is one of the biggest Disney animated flop ever at the box office and almost bankrupted the Walt Disney Animation studios. It costed them 44 million and they only made back about 21 million and they lost 23 million at the box office. I have watched the Disney Plus documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty which they talked about how Disney Animation was struggling before the change and take over with Michael Eisner.
Also here's some website articles like Collider which backs up my proof and claim that this film needs to be accepted on List of biggest box-office bombs Wikipedia page.
How The Black Cauldron Nearly Killed Disney Animation (collider.com)
Please include The Black Cauldron since it was Disney's biggest animated flop. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- This list has a total loss cutoff of at least $80M in 2023 dollars (last I checked, it may have gone up) as to prevent the list from being too long. $23M in 1985 is only around $65M in today's dollars, so it falls short of inclusion. Masem (t) 13:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- But isn't there a way we can include The Black Cauldron 1985 on Biggest Box Office Bombs? It was historically important, and it almost bankrupted Walt Disney Animation Studios. I was about 2 years old when The Black Cauldron came out and I almost have no memory of it until it came out on VHS in 1998. CrosswalkX (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- We don't cut special deals to get films on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also there are other films missing on the Biggest Box Office Bombs list including The Thief and the Cobbler 1992 by Richard Williams which also flopped at the box office. CrosswalkX (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- No but The Black Cauldron really did flop in theaters, I was 2 years old when The Black Cauldron came out and I never heard about it until it released on VHS in 1998. By the way Betty Logan, we need to consider creating a separate Wikipedia page called "List of biggest animated box-office bombs". And have this Wikipedia page List of biggest box-office bombs be for the live action films or retitle it "List of biggest live action box-office bombs" since the list is getting too big for the Wikipedia page.
- Also, there are many other animated films which are not listed here which flopped including Playmobil: The Movie. Artic Dogs, Mr. Bug Goes to Town, The Black Cauldron, Uglydolls, The Thief and the Cobbler, The Iron Giant, Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, The Pebble and the Penguin and many more which are missing, and I would like to see them included for Wikipedia history page. CrosswalkX (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are hundreds if not thousands of box-office bombs, but that's not WP's place to list them all as that list would be far too extensive. We have opted to limit the list to around 100 entries, using the magnitude of the losses as the way to determine the largest box-office bombs to include. I suspect many many animated films are bombs, but their losses are just too small to include. Masem (t) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- So what? there are many live-action bombs that are not on the list. The reason The Black Cauldron is not on the list is either sources do not exist for its losses (making it impossible for us to source how much it lost), or it simply didn't lose enough to be among the top 100 money-losers. You have to draw the line somewhere. Many lists are limited to 50 entries; we limit this one to films that are potentially among the top 100. As I said above, we don't construct the list with the express intention to include or to exclude any particular film. Also, it's not a list of the biggest "live-action" bombs, it is a list of the biggest bombs, period. There are nine animated films on the list as far as I can tell: A Christmas Carol (2009), Final Fantasy, The Good Dinosaur, Lightyear, Mars Needs Moms, Rise of the Guardians', Sinbad, Strange World and Treasure Planet. Why would we remove those films to make the list less complete? You wouldn't remove animated films from the List of highest-grossing films would you? Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- We don't cut special deals to get films on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- But isn't there a way we can include The Black Cauldron 1985 on Biggest Box Office Bombs? It was historically important, and it almost bankrupted Walt Disney Animation Studios. I was about 2 years old when The Black Cauldron came out and I almost have no memory of it until it came out on VHS in 1998. CrosswalkX (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Catwoman
Are there any sources that say how much money Catwoman lost in its theatrical run? It grossed $82 million globally on a $100 million budget plus marketing money and such. Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unless we know its marketing budget, the best we can say it is lost at least $18M, which makes it ineligible for this list (below the inclusion threshold) Masem (t) 13:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Catwoman is on the #Trimmed_list above. It almost qualifies for the list, but not quite. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=#> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=#}} template (see the help page).