Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

M:I VII pt1 DR

One source says it may lose $100M. Our cut-off is $90-95M. The film is still in theatres, and when we're talking about potentially less than $10M (or even $5M), it may be prudent to wait a little longer before we call it a "box office bomb"... especially when the sourcing isn't. (jmho) - wolf 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

2nd Version - Little Mermaid Remake

According to my calculations, the movie may lost over 168.3 Million dollars. The movie grew 586.2 million against 250 million. 207.190.21.49 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your calculations" is original research. Without a sourced budget that likely includes marketing, all we can say is this made a profit and thus not a box office bomb. Masem (t) 21:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Blue Bettle - Warner Bros & DC

The movie grossed 87 Million against 104 million dollars 24.235.144.97 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's only a $17m delta, which is too low to include ($90m or greater) Masem (t) 19:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for box office bombs ?

There are dozens of films on the main article, most of which grossed over their budget, but they still lost money for several reasons, including:

• A) A fraction of the box office gross goes to the film studio. Usually around 50 percent in the USA.
• B) Marketing was not included in the film's budget.
• C) In order to turn a profit, a film should gross at least 2X or 3X its budget.

68.119.148.180 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The criteria—in plain terms—is losing $90 million or more in adjusted dollars (as confirmed by people knowledegable about the production or as projected by analysts). The loss figure must come from a reliable source, although the article uses a template for the inflation adjustment. We as editors don't attempt to second guess the sources, although we make judgment calls over the quality of the source and the age of the source. If there is no good reason to choose one source over another then that is represented by a range. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Morbius

I'm surprised Morbius isn't in here 151.19.253.150 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's an $80 million movie that grossed $160 million. It probably lost money, but nowhere near enough to qualify for this list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep seeing people pop in -as they pass by- to ask if this film or that film should be on the list "'cuz it was really bad and it seems it lost a lot of money". Perhaps a simple (suppressed?) note stating that for a film to be listed here, it needs two things: 1) a reliable source that states the film was a bomb at the box office, and 2) sourcing that states the film lost at least US$90-95M (and this is not determined by just subtracting the budget from the wwbo). Maybe this would help with these questions? Just a thought... - wolf 05:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

But it was seen as one of the worst superhero movies ever, after the flash 2.42.9.98 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A film being considered one of the worst does not have any bearing on whether it financially failed at the box office, or vice versa. Masem (t) 12:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It may have underperformed at the box office, but it almost doubled its budget. It might've lost a couple of million dollars, but I don't consider the movie a box office bomb. I know this is talking about the box office but if you include home video sales, Morbius did eventually become profitable. Dc55555 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is all somewhat moot since a) as you point this list is in regards to performance at the box office, and b) this film isn't even on the list. - wolf 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Mutant Mayhem - Paramount & Nickelodeon

I found out the movie grossed 166 million against 70 million dollars. It needs 210 million to overgrow the box office 24.235.144.97 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is that 210 number coming from? if you are claiming that with marketing and promotional budget should be 3x the production budget, that is original research and absolutely not allowed. We can only go 166 revenue vs 70 cost for a 96M profit. Also the film only just came out, its far too early to consider its approach. Masem (t) 01:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Last Airbender (2010)

This movie won many Razzie Awards and was seen as one of the worst movies ever made. How much did it lose? 2.44.107.173 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

According to our article, it made >$150M. Bad movies do not necessarily equal box office bombs. Masem (t) 12:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for page to be expanded

Delgo (2008)

Does Delgo (2008) qualify? It was a historic flop, and made only 700000$ out of a 40000000$ budget. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No, even with inflation that's too low to include on this table. Masem (t) 17:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This page should be edited to make two categories: biggest box office bombs by absolute money lost, and biggest box office bomb relative to its budget.

In relative terms, I'm sure Delgo would qualify. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas (2012)

According to the article, "the film opened to only $9.6 million from 2,008 theaters, an average of $4,787 per theater, finishing second at the U.S. box office. The debut was described as "dreadful" by Box Office Mojo. The film ultimately grossed $27.1 million in the U.S. and $103.4 million internationally for a total of $130.5 million". With a budget of $100–146.7 million, sould it be here?

2.44.107.173 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No , the loss needs to be around $90M or greater to be included. Masem (t) 17:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: split this page into absolute and relative bombs

This page should be edited to make two categories: biggest box office bombs in terms of absolute money (lost more than 90 million dollars accounted for inflation) or biggest box office bombs relative to their budget (lost more than 40% or 50% of their budget, in dollars adjusted for inflation). This problem stems from the fact that in order to classify as biggest box office bombs in absolute terms, a movie has to be high-budget).

I'm sure Delgo, Morbius, Batman and Robin, Welcome to Marwen, Disaster Movie, United Passions, In the Name of the King, Terror on the Prairie, Alone in the Dark, The Haunting of Sharon Tate, and Playmobil the Movie would certainly qualify as some of the greatest box office bombs relative to their budget, even though they wouldn't classify as biggest box office bombs in absolute terms. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally sources consider biggest box office bombs by dollar amount, not relative budget. That would be original research on our side to make such a list. Masem (t) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This article does not consider return on investment, in the same way that List of highest-grossing films does not consider ROI. Simply put the biggest bombs are those films that lost the most money; it is the films that lose $100 million that generate coverage in reliable sources, not some obscure art-house movie that only made 5% of its money back. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article's scope is clearly about "biggest" bombs, a term that generally refers to films that lost the most money in absolute terms. These generate most of the coverage out there that I've seen. The problem with tracking percentages in relation to budget is that there are probably dozens of films (if not hundreds) tied with very high percentages, which would make for a fairly invaluable list. If the coverage for that is out there, and I'm wrong about the number of films that would appear in that list, then perhaps you could explore a separate list article that better defines that scope. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hypnotic (2023) - Ketchup Entertainment

In the box office, it made 12 or 8 million, however, the budget is 65 million 24.235.144.97 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The lower limit is $90M loss, so this will not be on this list. Masem (t) 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion (2023) - Disney 100

The movie was good overall, the movie made 109 million. However the budget is 150 million dollars 24.235.144.97 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that to be on this list, the minimum to be on this list is $90M loss? You've suggested several films now that are well below that level. Masem (t) 04:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know? I tried to calculate, but you told me that they're wrong! I've tried my best to find any recent year's flops so hard & for so long... & that's the thanks im gonna get... 24.235.144.97 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You calculate using the numbers that are reported. Made 109, budget of 150 . 109 - 150 = 31. Masem (t) 12:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but are not the losses determined by how much a given film needs to earn to break even? Hence why Transformers: The Last Knight is listed, in spite of doubling it's budget. 204.126.3.169 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the article thoroughly, look at how losses are determined, and just as importantly; sourced. All the films on the list, and thier losses, are supported by reliable sources, so make sure to also have a look at the sources (aka: references, citations) that are used as well. If you want to know if a film should be added, look and see if there are reliable sources that state it lost at least US$90M at the box office. That's how it's done. - wolf 09:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Fast X - Universal Studios

The film made 714.6 million against 340 million dollars. It "might" lost over round 350-400 million dollars, according to the calculator. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

lather, rinse, repeat...

Look, I don't want to be rude but we don't want to hear any more from you unless i) you have a source saying that a film lost money and ii) the source puts a number on those losses approaching $90 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lolz, that's it Betty... you tell him. But seriously, maybe it's time someone was little more... direct, with this user. (I mean, did they even bother to read this after I took the time to post it, for them?)

Also, maybe we should should consider posting an FAQ at the top of the talk page and bright red notices in the editor window for both the talk and the article, directing all these wayward, would-be contributors to read before editing either page. Otherwise, this is just gonna go on and on and on. - wolf 04:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added an editing note. It may need to be adapted as we go on. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Turning Red and Onward

I’m curious how Turning Red and Onward qualify if they weren’t given full theatrical runs domestically. Turning Red was only released in a number of markets so is there a difference? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They qualify on the basis of the sources in the article. Editors don't pick and choose what qualifies. It is clearly noted where a film's theatrical revenue was impaired by a multi-platform release, but that ultimately doesn't alter the fact the film lost a lot of money. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Turning Red is a "unique" case as it came down to a hybrid release. In my opinion, it's pretty dubious as the revenue brought in from streaming isn't factored in. [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Subscription based streaming doesn't bring in any money, only subscribers. Whatever circumstances it was affected by were not considered "unique" enough for The Numbers to exclude it from its list. The Numbers is either reliable for assessing how much money a film has lost, or it is not, but it's not our place as editors to vet each entry against some arbitrary criteria we have invented. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You are using WP:SYNTH to come to your own conclusion about streaming revenue. If it means nothing, then why is Screen Rant and Collider citing it? [2], [3]. That being said I don't think it should be excluded, but there should be a footnote that addresses this. There is also a disclaimer at the top of the "Numbers" source: "The data we have is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate but there are gaps and disputed figures. If you have additional information or corrections, please let us know at corrections@the-numbers.com." This means that the totals are not absolute or set in stone. Nobody is trying to "vet each entry", we just have to be careful to present a neutral point of view based on what the sources are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That collider article says the same thing Betty Login said... the films brought subs to the streaming platform, but how those subs are factored into a profit or loss by the distributor is just an unknown. Masem (t) 15:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You say there should be a footnote that addresses this issue, but doesn't the article not already do this? The issue affects several films (not just Turning Red) and is addressed in the last paragraph of the lead. In addition, every film that had a simultaneous streaming release is marked with a §, which in turn is explained in the key at the top. In principle I have no objection to a footnote, but I am struggling to understand what it would add beyond what is already there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Then shouldn't The Irishman be here as well? Grossing between 900k and 8 million against a budget of 159-250 million? 204.126.3.169 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding The Irishman was produced exclusively for Netflix, and had a small theatrical release to qualify for the oscars, so it was never intended to earn back its costs through a theatrical release. However such considerations are beyond the remit of Wikipedia. If reliable sources start to include it in their lists, then we will too. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The Expendables 4 (2023) - Lionsgate

The Expendables 4 (or Expend4bles, whichever title you prefer) has grossed $49,000,000 on a $100,000,000 budget. That's pretty small in comparison. So much for the wait for the fourth. Overwhelming negative reviews, rise of streaming when COVID-19 hit, changing of the cast (just watch the trailers), and the fact that people stopped caring for the franchise (ever since it was dormant for 9 years) contributed to the film's disastrous opening weekend. Aeiou13579 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That would only be a $51M loss, we are only including losses of $90M or more Masem (t) 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. (: Aeiou13579 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023) - Paramount Pictures

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has the same source for its BO loss of $100 million with Mission: Impossible 7. As much as I hate to admit it, don’t you think M:I 7 should be here, as it was reported by Variety (particularly reliable source), used by Indy 5 for its expected loss numbers, and its $100+ million loss in theaters being above the nominal minimum of $90 million to be on this list? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Our article says Dial of Destiny appeared to break even , even with a $300M budget, while MI7 made at least $250M. Neither firt this list. --Masem (t) 14:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I checked the Variety article, and the $100M loss is very high speculation, not based on any hard numbers, so I've removed Dial of Destiny from the list. Masem (t) 14:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  In addition, that Variety source did not take into account the $71 million in COVID-19 insurance payout that MI7 received, which was announced a month later (see the film's Box office section). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is why it's best not to jump the gun on these things. Without taking the COVID payout into account, the two films had comparable costs, but Mission Impossible grossed $200 million more than Indy (which will translate to $100 million more in revenue) so I never saw their losses as directly comparable anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dial of Destiny grossed about $380M globally [4][5], against an estimated budget of $300M production and $100M advertising. It didn't even get half-way to breaking even! --2804:D4B:7924:6B00:C9D3:5918:2A20:BE61 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't know where that $100m is from but even with that, that's only a $20m loss which is too small to include (we need $90m or more) Masem (t) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well to be fair, studios only take in about half of the gross, but the overall point here is that we need something more concrete than the speculation that has been provided so far. We need sources that have provided real expert analysis. Wikipedia editors can't look at the numbers and make assumptions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Where's 2023 Movie Bombs

After i came back after 12 days, I don't see any 2023 box office bombs anymore, what happened to these 2023 movies? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

They will be added when the relevant financial analysis is published. The Numbers only added 2022 films to its "Bomb" list earlier this year, so we may have to wait until next year before 2023 films are added. Please bear in mind there is WP:NODEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, it seems like the production houses were more cautious, not backing any big movies that they were not assured of a major return. Even the films that people want to be bombs, like Indiana Jones or the Flash (because they were critically poor films) were far from failures. Masem (t) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

From the lead of The Flash (film): The film has grossed $270.6 million worldwide, becoming one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, with projections of a $200 million loss for Warner Bros.

From the lead of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny: grossed $384 million worldwide, becoming a box office disappointment due to a lack of wide audience appeal and an expensive overall budget, with projections of as much as a $100 million loss for Disney.

From one of Betty Logan's comments above: The criteria—in plain terms—is losing $90 million or more in adjusted dollars (as confirmed by people knowledegable about the production or as projected by analysts).

And from one of Masem's comments above: we are only including losses of $90M or more.

I don't think I need to elaborate... only to say that if these films are not qualified for this list then those articles have substandard leads. Different standards? JM (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable speculation is acceptable on Wikipedia to a certain extent, and those articles are rolling with it as the basis for inclusion. Here in this article, the final numbers matter more than just the label "box-office bomb", since a film's ranking in the list can be impacted by adjustments to those numbers. So in a nutshell, speculation on its own hasn't been enough to get onto this list, though it may be enough for that label to be applied at each film's respective article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Different objectives. This list attempts to quantify how much films have lost, or expect to lose on based on insider information or some form of analytical undertaking. That's a bit different to saying some might lose as much as $100 million. Variety made this claim about the recent Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible films; however, despite costing the same, Mission Impossible grossed $200 million more, so I think it's very unlikely they both lost similar amounts of money. To be fair that might yet turn out to be in the right ballpark for Indian Jones, but at the moment it's educated speculation. It might be okay to add to an article that projected losses range up to $100 million, but we need something a little bit more certain for a list documenting financial losses. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't that mean M:I cost more to promote? Dead Reckoning released its first trailer within a whole year of its release, and in Top Gun: Maverick's run, it was the trailer that was being showcased before Maverick started playing. Jones started its started half-year campaign... half a year before the release. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Mission Impossible cost about $100 million to promote, apparently, and I can't imagine Disney spending significantly less. I don't think it lost money, at least not enough to make this list. I guess we'll find out for sure once Deadline does its annual line-up of box-office bombs. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would even challenge the claims on those articles about being a big flop as the sources speculated based on the first couple of weeks and not the long run. Masem (t) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions

The Flash

I have had to remove this a couple of times now. On both occasions its $200 million loss has been sourced to this Yahoo article which in turn is quoting a box-office analyst on Twitter. There are two problems here: i) I see no evidence that the Twitter source is an authoritative source for these types of claims. Does he work for Variety? Does he work for The Wall Street Journal? I see no evidence of credibility. ii) The second problem is that he doesn't actually say the film has lost $200 million, or even project that it will, he is simply hypothesizing that it "could"! The film should not be added back until there is a more authoritative source available i.e. The Numbers/Deadline/The Hollywood Reporter etc. If the film loses that much money, then it will be reported in the ensuing months. Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masem and Thewolfchild: As regular editors of this article do either of you have views on this addition. Note that the subsequent Forbes article only calls it a flop, it doesn't say how much the film has lost. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Forbes contributor articles are not reliable sources per WP:RS/P. Masem (t) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just plugging "the flash box office bomb" into Google seems to bring up a lot of results; [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17] ...so there's no question that it's widely considered a box-office bomb. It's really just a question of whether or not it lost enough money to meet the threshold for inclusion on our list. - wolf 16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is any doubt that it had bombed, but having looked through several of those sources I haven't come across any other saying it lost $200 million. That seems to be speculation at this point. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This $200M number is unfortunately somewhat of a distraction, as far as this list goes. We don't need sources to confirm it lost $200M, just that it lost more than $90M (adj). I wish some of these fly-by editors would realize that. And that there is no rush to get any film listed. - wolf 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the film will be on the list before the end of the year. That 200 mil figure may even turn out to be accurate, but I would prefer to not degrade the standard of sourcing just to get films on the list a bit quicker. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we shouldn't be in a rush to include it. Makes sense to wait for proper sourcing that confirms the actual amount. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Update It has been brought to my attention that the Yahoo article discussed above is a reprint of this article at SuperHeroHype, which is definitely not a reliable source. Kala7992 I am sorry to see you have been blocked; I think it's a shame it came to that. I assure you that nobody here has an ulterior motive to keep certain films off this list; we are all committed to making it as accurate as possible. But that has to be done via authoritative sourcing. Fansites such as SuperHeroHype, people on Twitter and blogs such as WorldOfReel are simply not good enough sources for complex financial analysis. I am fairly certain both The Flash and Indy 5 will be on this list before the end of the year. I am not so sure about Shazam due to fact it cost far less than some of the other films you have mentioned, but if we find suitable sourcing it will be added. This list is comprehensive and films are not given a free pass just because we may like the film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Its okay, thank you for clarifying, sorry I overreacted Kala7992 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw Black Adam was added a month after it released, were there legitimate sources for the movie’s losses at that time? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The source is accessible, so you can read it for yourself. The loss projections for Black Adam are attributed to "insiders and rival executives". When we get a comparable source for The Flash it will be added. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we really several months later without a source deemed “reliable” for The Flash? That 200m figure is being reported quite often. GarlicBreadBen (talk) GarlicBreadBen (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Reported quite often by who? So far I haven't seen any of the reputable trade publications reporting its losses. Indiana Jones has just been added to the list, and The Flash will be in due course. If it isn't, then it will almost certainly turn up in Deadline's "biggest bombs of the year" list in the New Year. I would be surprised if it lost as much as $200 million; it cost less than The Lone Ranger, and grossed more, and that film only lost $160–190 million. My guess is that its losses are in the $100–150 million range, but we will see! Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Flash - the Guardian, sited the Flash as a box office bomb. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-the-flash-bombed-box-office-harrison-ford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.112.218 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That article was published a couple weeks after the Flash was in theaters, far too soon for any way to call it a BOB. All future sources show that while it wasn't a blockbuster, it also wasn't the bomb that these articles projected. Masem (t) 13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you produce sources showing the Flash is not a box-office bomb? Below are sources indicating movie tanked at the theatres.

https://heroichollywood.com/the-flash-becomes-historic-box-office-bomb/#:~:text=However%2C%20that%20budget%20comes%20in,%24200%20million%20on%20the%20film.&text=This%20%24200%20million%20loss%20puts,office%20bomb%20in%20Hollywood%20history.

https://thedirect.com/article/the-flash-movie-box-office-flop-hollywood

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-flash-movie-dc-box-office-bomb-breakdown-2258888/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/comics/2023/07/01/the-flash-box-office/ 96.244.112.218 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It may have lost money, but the problem is that we only have a sourced production budget, and an unknown estimate of marketing. There is no source that gives a loss that is against the total box office of $270m that gives the known costs in the $200-$220M range. If its marketing was only $100M (which is a reasonable rule of thumb), then its losses are only $30m, too small for this table. The loss figure of $200M that is often sited is being pulled out of thin air and does not corroborate with any other sources that we have. Masem (t) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

When a reliable source posts a loss figure based on analysis rather than speculation we will add it to the list, if it qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Shazam 2

The same editor that is repeatedly adding The Flash is now repeatedly adding Shazam 2 sourced to this blog. Blogs are not considered reliable sources per WP:BLOGS, unless the person behind them is an established authority in their field i.e. they have been reliably published in the past for claims of a similar nature. This does not appear to be the case here. There is nothing to suggest that either "World of Reel" or the person behind (Jordan Ruimy) is reliable for financial anlysis.

The edit summary reasoned that it makes no sense to remove it because it grossed "less than The Suicide Squad". It is not for us to second guess why some films make the list and some don't, but I would proffer that it cost substantially less than The Suicide Squad, meaning that the break-even point is much lower. What doesn't make sense here is the fact that despite costing far less than The Suicide Squad (at least $60 million) and grossing only $30 million less, according to the "World of Reel" it somehow lost $30 million more.

Adding films attributed to low quality sourcing is not in the interests of the article. If these films did indeed lose such sums of money that they qualify for the list then reputable sources will pick that up in the next few months. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would really like to argue that no film should be added to this list until at least a month into the regular public release of the film (for films that are scheduled for mass theater releases, post-COVID). If there are still sources calling it a bomb after that period, and have the math to justify inclusion, great. But we shouldn't be jumping on sources that claim a film has bombed a week after release (as I've seen some say for Indy 5). Masem (t) 00:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There used to be an old rule in Hollywood that you didn't know if you had a hit until the third weekend. I don't think that especially holds true anymore for hits, but I think it does for bombs. A film can turn it around in the second week and then have low drops from then on. Both Titanic and Avatar were branded bombs off their sub-par opening weekends and look how that turned out. I think the problem with an arbitrary time-limit is that we can kind of see where Indy is going to end up now ($350–400 million) so if The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline were to put out some loss estimates on that basis in the next week then it would be difficult to put forward a policy based rationale for keeping them off the list. On the other hand, a month in some cases may not be long enough, because the trajectory can be even more elongated over the Christmas period or if a film has a slow roll-out. But I think if we double-down on high quality sourcing (which as a rule doesn't jump the gun) then we will avoid this kind of reactionary journalism (if you can call it that). Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus the effects of overseas. Films that "bomb" in the US may have great success in China (like Elemental, [18]). So I do agree that we should be looking at high quality RSs - namely the golden trio of Variety, THR and Deadline - to judge whether something is a bomb or not. Masem (t) 01:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Jones the Dial of Destiny

Didn't it bomb harder than even the Flash? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Both will definitely enter the list, Indy may even top it. But they're still in theatres. Gotta wait for final numbers before adding them.--2804:D4B:79BD:8F00:85AD:3E88:64AD:E305 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So, did indy ultimately top it? 151.34.24.132 (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Likely, but we'll have to wait for the final production budget numbers to come in, as well as for the box office run to end. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we there yet on Indy? Asgrrr (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The Marvels (too soon)

I know it's too soon, but I wonder whether or not The Marvels could end up here. 5.89.210.114 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends on how much it cost. Some say it cost just $130M, some say it cost twice as much. Hollywood accounting, you never know... --2804:D4B:7924:6B00:391C:7400:3199:89CE (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not saying which is the correct figure, but the Forbes reported $274.8M would be the official one, since it comes from company filings and they received government subsidy based on that figure. A lower figure could imply an accusation that Disney is committing fraud on the government. Hzh (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if we can use that Forbes article as a ref, it was written by a contributor as opposed to a staff writer. (see WP:RSP) - wolf 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The contributor, Caroline Reid, is an exception. See this recent discussion: WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Caroline Reid almost certainly qualifies under the "subject matter specialist" exception of WP:SPS. She has published a lot of the same material in the high-quality UK paper of record, The Times. Unfortunately, they are behind a paywall, and they don't publish everything. However, her figures can be directly corroborated with Disney's filings to HMRC, if you have the production name for the film. Of those I have÷ been able to check, I have never come across any mistakes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, but maybe a note should be added to the Forbes entry at RSP listing known SMEs such as Reid. Not everyone will root through the WT:Film archives, or any other related talk space histories, to check on the status of a contributor before rejecting a potentially useful Forbes ref. (jmho) - wolf 04:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea worth a suggestion at WT:RSN. Maybe they can create a sub-page or sub-listing of the reliable SMEs, cited by links to past discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mr Peabody and Sherman and penguins of Madagascar flopped

You need to add them too 2605:B100:524:8339:856D:2B91:5A9B:A3D8 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Both films lost around $57m, in 2014 dollars, which in 2023 dollars would fall short of the $95m min. Level for inclusion. Masem (t) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Babylon and Amsterdam

Both 2022 movies known for their flops. Should they be on here? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't Babylon here? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The wiki page for Babylon states that "Babylon would need to gross $250 million worldwide in order to break-even". It grossed 63 million, so it would have lost 187 million. 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence on the Babylon article states "The site ultimately calculated the film lost the studio $87.4 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.", which falls under the $90M lower level we currently use to keep this list concise.

Amsterdam, however, could likely be added, as there there's an estimated $108M loss. Masem (t) 13:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As Masem points out, Babylon doesn't qualify. It used to be on the list, but is now on the #Trimmed list above after the threshold was raised. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should make a different section to list more films that are box office bombs. Like separate sections of names of films from A-L and M-Z. Removing some films that are listed as box office bombs kind of affects which notable films that bombed if we trimmed it down. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of films that would qualify as BOB that such a list would be far too long for WP. Hence the reason for tracking those with the largest, adjusted for inflation. There are other sites that people can use to find more such films. Masem (t) 16:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed something that might make my point. There is a split section of episode list in the show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which is going to it's 25th season thus far, as you seen seasons-19 and season 20-present. In the former, there is a section where it links to the seasons 20-present as you see here and the latter has a link that leads to seasons 1-19, as it's seen here. I think there's a possibility that something like that could be used to split the number of films that bombed bad in the box office. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the number of episodes is a finite, controlled number. There are bounds to that set, as the show will eventually end. However, films that fail to make their costs will always keep happening, so a full list is potentially unbounded. Thus it makes sense to just limit to around 100 or so entries, focused on the biggest losses. Masem (t) 22:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Having a cut-off around 100 films is no different to how the highest-grossing charts are managed. This is a list of the biggest' box-office bombs; providing a catalog of every film that has bombed would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wish (Disney)

How much did this movie lose? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Best number for budget was $200m, with ticket sales at $126m, so thats only 74m, less than the minimum to be included. Masem (t) 21:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe studios only get half of the box office revenue, with the other half going to the theaters, so wish would have lost appoximently $137m. Personma (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't consider the split between studios and theaters, unless that is explicitly mentioned part of sourced numbers. Masem (t) 17:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2023

So far in June, I don't see any lists for this year, 2023, box office bombs. Is it for saved for later, or is it something else. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A little bit of both, I'd say. When a film tanks it usually takes a while to ascertain how much it will lose; 2023 films will probably start to appear on the list towards the end of the year, and mostly next year. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2023 bombs should be added to this page. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest they wouldn't be? If a bomb is currently missing from the list, and there's proper sourcing to back the amount, then obviously it should be added. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Aquaman 2

How much did it lose? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Far far too soon to know. Masem (t) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, do we know yet? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Still far too soon. Wed like be looking to June 2024 before making a determination. Masem (t) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is to discuss potential changes you want to make to the list. Please do not treat it as a help desk or forum. You are encouraged to seek your own answers in reliable sources. If you have a question about something you find in a source, feel free to bring that here. All other general questions, such as asking for a status, may be hidden or removed. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG for more information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 box office bombs

Several 2023 movies need to be added to this list, including The Flash, Wish, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning and The Marvels. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I can pretty easily guess what Masem and Betty Logan's response will be to this: there needs to be reliable sources explicitly telling us the numerical loss. From above, sources for box office losses that they have mentioned include Caroline Reid from Forbes, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. JM (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this list is always a year behind—the 2022 entries were added last year, and the 2023 entries will be added over the course of this year, and this year's flops will be added next year. It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Deadline will do it's annual round-up in April in any case, so not much longer to wait. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add again that I think there's also an impression that big budget films that did poorly with audiences and/or critics are necessarily bombs, which is not always true. I know there's a small contingent of the Internet that wants to see the Marvels fail hard (being as female-oriented as it is, and thus in their terms, "woke") but that isn't going to push us any faster to add it to this list without an affirmed lost number. Masem (t) 13:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way marketing costs are typically lumped together with other films at Disney, we'll have no way of knowing for sure how much was spent on marketing for The Marvels unless Disney chooses to reveal that information. But on pre-production and production costs alone, this film is going to lose a massive amount of money. Just taking those two into account, the film is expected to lose at least $200 million per Carolyn Reid's numbers that say the film needed at least $440 million to break even. Not a final estimate yet, just an early one, since marketing and post-production wasn't estimated. As mentioned, we'll need to wait for a list that reveals solid estimates for each film, but don't be surprised to see Marvels at the top of the list. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

per the wiki page it lists, as a 80 million dollar loss with a worldwide gross of 109 million. however the sourced article that gives that estimated loss of 80 million is using a global gross number of only 72.1 million. and the box office mojo figure which seems to be the standard used on this page to source global gross is giving 110 million global gross

something does not add up with the listed totals for gross and estimated loss and the sources do not support the totals given. the wiki article for the film lists 107 million box office gross Holydiver82 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It helps if you actually read the article fully. At the time the article was written, The Man from UNCLE had grossed $72 million, but The Hollywood Reporter clearly states "Here are five big bombs of the season when accounting for budget, marketing spend and revenue the film can expect to earn in ancillary markets. Grosses are through Sept. 4, with several titles still in release worldwide." In other words, THR based their projected loss on an estimate of total income. Once you are several weeks into a film's run it is fairly straightforward to project a film's box-office trajectory. It is also worth noting that THR gives loss ranges for their estimates in that article, and the loss for The Man from UNCLE is their baseline figure. It is not as though it opened in any large markets after the cut-off date in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So the source made a guess about the loss based on incomplete information with assumptions about the future. Interesting response to attack me and the defend using projections and incomplete information to put films on the list. Seems odd if the general opinion of the talk page is to wait and be patient to make sure you have the full accounting and the final figures. And in this case have the sole source of the loss be based on one source that was making guesses before the film was out of theatres (the film went on to generate 50% more revenue than reported in the article)

Also odd that your response in no way wants to address that issue or try to confirm or correct the information based on other sources that could have better information. Holydiver82 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: We may want to execute WP:DENY to prevent any further disruption with this user. If that doesn't work, then WP:ANI may be the best route. Mike Allen 21:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I posted about incomplete and contradictory information in the article, to which the person who has decided they own this page attacked me accusing me of not reading the source (which I had). Also odd Holydiver82 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82: There are no attacks above. This is now the third time I've had to remind you to focus on content, not the contributor and to assume good faith. If you have a problem with a behavioral issue, take it to WP:ANI. You also need to start writing in paragraph form (I've fixed this, yet again). Patience on these two areas is running very thin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82 asked a reasonable question, and got a reasonable answer. The lead makes it clear that the "figures of losses are usually rough estimates at best". The Man from UNCLE is not dealt with any differently to all the other films in the list. We have never asked for "full accounting" for any entry on this page, just a reliably sourced loss figure, from a reputable industry publication. If he has knowledge of alternative loss projections for The Man from UNCLE we are always happy to review them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania: Transformania

This was not released in theatres globally only in China with only $18.5 million on a $75 million budget 205.172.121.203 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to warrant an entry here? Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Even with numbers, the lower bound on this list is around $95m, which the budget doesn't even reach. Masem (t) 19:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Although if they spent enough on marketing then it could end up with a 95m+ loss. But the IP didn't provide a source anyway so it doesn't matter. JM (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinocchio (Zemeckis)

unlike the Garrone and Del Toro movies, Zemeckis' Pinocchio is unanimously contidered terrible. Is it enough pf a flop to be on here? 2.37.48.42 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It has zero theatrical run, only been streaming, so I don't think we include streaming-only releases. Also being a critical failure does not equate to box office bomb. Masem (t) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Madame Web

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

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

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

Argylle

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

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

Disney's Wish

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

We need reliable sources backing up a description of it as a bomb, otherwise it's original research. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a profit of 54m, so no. Masem (t) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Advertisement, its usually said you need somewhere between 1.5 to 2.5 the budget to actually make a profit Braganza (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the added costs of marketing beyond the reported budget are well recognized but we need a reliable source to document that total number and assert that it was a box office bomb/flop. Masem (t) 13:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

that's very much not how box office revenue works for the studio making the film. i find it very bizarre how many people post on these topics who do not understand how box office revenue works at all. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

But don't you also find it "bizarre" how many posts are asking about film losses? Why are we evaluating raw numbers to begin with? We shouldn't be. That's not our job. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

no I do not. people asking about movies that obviously lost disney significant amounts of money, in this case easy estimate of 50 million+. so someone who clearly does not understand all the rules and regulations of wikipedia asking if films that lost huge amounts of money belong on the list seems like the exact thing that should be on the talk page. just LOL. in fact it would seem to make sense to start a talk for each film that appears to belong on the list to work out the sourcing and determine if it should be added. pretty much the entire purpose of the talk page Holydiver82 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course you don't, big shocker. When the same question is answered the same way each time, yet gets asked repeatedly over and over, it goes from being a productive use of the community's time to being disruptive. Talk pages can be used to help determine if source(s) qualify, but if you come to the table empty handed and overlook/ignore similar discussions already on the page, you're wasting everyone's time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Bump threshold to $100M?

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

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

Fair enough, forgot about the ones with loss ranges. Masem (t) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion

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

The Flash (and other films)

@TropicAces: just added a 2024 Deadline source that has the Flash at a $155m loss, so that can be added too, finally. — Masem (t) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume we can now add several films frequently discussed above. Here's the Deadline source I recently saw mentioned on another talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TropicAces had used that source to add Wish and update Indy 5, hence why I pointed out the Flash is in there too. TropicAces did get to adding that (I wasn't in a position then to do that easily) — Masem (t) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why The Marvels and Haunted Mansion were taken off this morning. Was it by mistake? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

They weren't added yet, not that they were on there. — Masem (t) 13:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's just a relief to wrap up this saga about The Flash. It finished just outside my predicted range of $100–150 million, but far enough away from $200 million to show why it's better to wait for a credible source. Hopefully we can have a few weeks off before the 2024 flops land... Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Marvels

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

$70M loss is too low for inclusion. Masem (t) 01:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not True at all, Actually, some of the films on this page have a loss of less then 70M. Plus if you factor in the Break Even Point which is somewhere between 540M and 700M then the loss is somewhere between 330M and 500M. UnboundBeartic (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

All of the films on this list have lost potentially $90 million or more, adjusted to 2022 prices. That is clearly stated in the paragraph preceding the chart. There are some films where the nominal loss is under $70 million (Heaven's Gate, for example) but the adjusted loss in all cases is over $90 million. If it has lost as much money as you say then it will be added to the list in due course, once we get some concrete loss figures. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Its the loss adjusted for inflation, so older films may have losses in their day <$70m but now are over $95m. As the Marvels just happened this year, that $70m is what we work with, and unless a reliable source gives us the actual full production and marketing/distribution budget, we go with the reported production budget numbers. Masem (t) 05:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

They have to make at least twice the budget to Break Even, The Break Even Point is at least $548m So it cost Disney at least $343m. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats original research, however. Not all films require that to break even. Masem (t) 14:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well any big budget films especially one's on Marvel's level do. Plus that's not including marketing which was probably really high. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, here's some sources proving my point.

https://collider.com/the-marvels-gross-break-even/#:~:text=A%20budget%20that%20high%2C%20combined,if%20it%27s%20to%20squeeze%20into

https://gamerant.com/the-marvels-box-office-numbers-break-even/ UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If The Marvels has indeed lost $343 million, that would mean it has obliterated the record held by Lone Ranger/John Carter by a good $100 million. That would be massive news, and yet I haven't seen news outlet report it. If it is the biggest bomb ever, then it's only a matter of time before that is reported and when it is the film will be added to this list. There's obviously a reason why the likes of Variety//Hollywood Reporter/Deadline are not reporting that type of loss—either it is incorrect, or if it is correct they have not been able to corroborate it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well which of these sources reliable? UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the sources above provide a loss figure of $343 million, just that it would need to earn $700 million to enter profitability. It's also not clear whether that $700 million figure represents the studio revenue figure or if it includes the theaters' share as well. As I said, if the film had indeed lost $343 million (a solid $100 million more than the previous record-holder) then that would be big news, but nobody is reporting losses of that magnitude. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I found another reliable source with a break-even point confirming a lower break even point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=25fb397638da UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mensjournal.com/streaming/the-marvels-must-make-440-million-to-break-even# UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@UnboundBeartic: Not a comment on this specific discussion, just letting you know that the Forbes source may not necessarily be considered reliable. Per WP:RSP, articles written by Forbes Staff Writers are generally considered reliable, while articles written by "Senior Contributors", such as the one you've linked above, are generally not considered reliable. (FYI) - wolf 08:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See the earlier "The Marvels" section above, but there is exception for Caroline Reid as a reliable source despite being a Forbes contributor. Normally you're right but we do have a case for her as an reputable source. Masem (t) 13:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's like talking to a brick wall. This list documents losses, not break-even points: a break-even point is not representative of the loss if it includes the theaters' share of the gross. And you cannot deduce the loss from the break-even point without knowing how much the film has taken from its ancillary revenue streams. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Not True at all, many of the films on this site take the Break Even Point into account. UnboundBeartic (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single film here where loss has been determined by us based on a theoretical break-even point. I know that for a fact because I helped build the list and have vetted every single film on it. Every single film on this list is accompanied by a reliable source that states clearly how much money the film has lost. Even if we could do what you are suggesting (which actually is not possible unless you know the theater share, the marketing costs and projected ancillary revenue) we wouldn't be permitted to because it would violate WP:Original research. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Or to stress more, if we have a source that says that (well after the film's theatrical release) the total losses greatly exceeded the budget by a numerical figure that includes the Break Even Point estimates, that's fine. We can use such "original research" when put forth by reliable sources. But we simply cannot make that leap of logic ourselves, even if we know what base industry estimates might be. Masem (t) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 entries on this list were added earlier this year. Any 2023 films that make the cut will most likely be added some time next year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Question, if next year, reliable sources say the film had a box office loss of $500 Million Dollars. How much will it affect this and several other similar pages? UnboundBeartic (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If a source like Variety or Hollywood Reports asserts the Marvels lost $500M, then yes, it would go on this list. What other pages that would be affected we don't know.

I will say that your insistence to get Marvels added is edging on WP:TE, and also along the likes of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but in this case, because you may feel it must be included because it was a poorly reviewed and performing Marvel CU film. That's not how editing on WP works. We have to go by sources. Masem (t) 01:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

box office: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt10676048/

budget: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=591aa68938da

loss on budget alone will be over 100 million not including all of the delays, reshoots, and marketing and promotion. plenty more links for box office, budget showing 100 million+ loss Holydiver82 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources you have provided state the losses incurred. As explained above, we do not add editorial guesswork to the article as it would violate WP:Original research. Films are added to the list as and when a reliable source publishes a credible loss figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, as stated in multiple ways throughout this page and its archives, we need to wait until we have a final estimate from a high-quality source that combines all known factors into a grand total calculation. Carolyn Reid's source is a great start, but it is not a final estimate (it was published a couple months prior to the film's release).

• Side note: Please stop breaking up your sentences into individual lines. This can make discussions harder to follow, especially when your response shares the same indentation as other responses above yours. I have fixed it this time, but you should do this moving forward; write in paragraph form. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

https://thedirect.com/article/the-marvels-box-office-mcu

this source puts loss at 255 million Holydiver82 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of TheDirect, and if a film had lost $255 million then top tier media outlets such as Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter would have picked up on the story. Besides, The Direct does not put the loss at $255 million; this is what they actual say: "So, The Marvels appears to have lost Disney and Marvel Studios around $255 million looking exclusively at the figures from its theatrical run. Luckily, much of this revenue ought to be recouped in home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+." I reiterate what I stated below: it helps to read the whole article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

does this list of box office bombs use the box office revenue or all revenue generated by the film? because this article will need a massive update if we are including home entertainment sales and after box office earnings. i was under the impression this box office bomb list was about the box office figures. correct me if i am wrong, so i can go through and start looking at all the films listed as bombs and review the listed losses to see if the sources take into account the total revenue generated years after it left theaters Holydiver82 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Direct is largely a fan site/blog, and it is deemed an unreliable source by the MCU taskforce standards. It is not an official source for box office information, let alone a highly reputable source for its terminology or labeling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

good to know, thanks Holydiver82 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Going back to your point about post-box office revenue, perhaps Betty Logan can shed some light on that. I realize some sources like Deadline release total revenue that includes post-box office, but other sources don't always specify that's been taken into account. Also considering the term is "box office bomb", should box office revenue be the only factor assessed when making that determination? It's definitely a good question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Profit/loss analysis should make a reasonable attempt to account for revenue from ancillary markets, and costs such as marketing and distribution. This doesn't mean the sources require a full audit of those things, though. If you take The Man from UNCLE discussion below, THR based its analysis on a projection of the box-office gross, and based its analysis on reasonable assumptions about ancillary revenue. Once a film has been in play in all of its major markets for a few weeks, the box-office trajectory is relatively straightforward to project, as most films follow a logarithmic curve (you can see this here). The overseas ratio often stabilises, and the box-office usually accounts for at least half of a film's income these days. Once you reach that point, either the studio or industry writers can porject how much they are likely to lose. Some sources such as THR offer a "snapshot", while others such TheNumbers treat their biggest money-loses chart as a work in progress, updating their projections depending on how strong home video sales are.

Ultimately, films go on making money indefinitely; both Cleopatra and Waterworld move out of bomb territory thanks to licensing of TV rights. A similar thing happened with Justice League which lost a ton in theaters but had surprisingly strong home video sales (which didn't save it from bomb stats, but moved it off this chart). John Carter was especially interesting, because Disney itself took a writedown of $200 million, and TheNumbers projected that the loss ended up being half of that. The porcess for this chart is straightforward: we wait for a reputable source to bring forward some meaningful analysis and we add it to the list if it qualifies; if those numbers change based on future sales then we update accordingly, if the source is available. Due to the inherent uncertainty linked to the figures, it is why this chart is not numbered. It is also why we have more than 100 films on the list, because we actually have more than 100 films competing for the top 100 places, on the basis that some films have loss "ranges".

In recent months, unfortunately, the list has become something of a battleground for editors from rival comic-book camps. For those of us who maintain this article it is just a numerical exercise: we don't actually care which films make the list and which don't; we only care about the quality of the source. The numbers aren't really that important at the end of the day because we are not a financial tracker, they just provide a quantitative criteria for us to approximate list of the biggest bombs of all-time. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent summary. So it seems the viewpoint, then, is that a film that bombs at the box office but makes up the loss in whole or part through post-box-office revenue (i.e. home entertainment sales, streaming, etc.) would have the ability to shake the box-office bomb label. Perhaps that's what trips up editors that assume the label only applies to the theatrical run and the revenue generated from that portion of a film's lifespan. Admittedly, I would have assumed the same. You would think there's a difference between bombing at the box office and bombing overall. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you can probably make a case for the distinction, but most sources don't so we are stuck with what we can source. Ancillary markets are kind of factored in now, and pretty much everything except the tentpoles are not expected to break even until they hit home video. Deadline did a really interesting article on this issue in relation to Waterworld and how even though it has entered profitability it is still thought of as flop. This article has had several titles down the years; around a decade ago it was called List of movies generating losses, which was probably less ambiguous, but a less intuitive name. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, at the very least, it seems the context should probably be scrutinized more closely in sources moving forward (note to self). One source might label a film a box-office bomb based on analysis of its theatrical run, while another shows the film nearly broke even and didn't flop based on ancillary revenue. In this hypothetical, neither is necessarily wrong, and retaining the box-office bomb label in the article could still be reasonably argued (assuming MOS:ACCLAIMED is satisfied). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

do you count home entertainment sales including subsidiaries "paying" each other for streaming rights? If so how do you source that. Because you made a point of putting that in bold in previous replies and it's a significant distinction Holydiver82 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to discuss that side of income. Most actually don't. Its why the COVID-released films like Turning Red are on this list because of the technicality that we can only readily track box office. From a read of how the film went at Disney, it wasn't considered a complete failure, just that Disney isn't going to let us in on how they financially calculated that. So it gets the Asterisk of Doom on this list. Masem (t) 05:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

considering disney can assign any arbitrary amount to "pay" itself for streaming rights of its own films it would be a totally useless and irrelevant figure. its simply a hollywood accounting entry to say one subsidiary of disney "paid" another subsidiary 10 mill, 50 mill, 100 mill for the streaming rights and then call that revenue for the film. no one actually gets any money, its just for accounting purposes and to move losses around different subsidiaries. if this list includes "home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+ as stated by Betty then it is not actually a list of box office bombs Holydiver82 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

However, in classifying box office bombs, if the media has access to home releases, and that still makes it a significant loss, they will still call it a box office bomb, probably because its theatrical release didn't pan out. It's not up to us to remove entries that have big losses even after home media is accounted for. It does point to the issue that the total profits and total costs of a film are not consistently track to include all facets (international, home and streaming media as profit; marketing and promotion as costs), so we just have to take what reliable sources give us. Masem (t) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The prose makes the scope of the topic very clear: The following is a partial list of films that lost the most money, based on documented losses or estimated by expert analysis of various financial factors such as the production budget, marketing and distribution costs, gross box-office receipts and other ancillary revenues. Most reputable sources do not limit their analysis just to box-office receipts: Deadline doesn't, The Hollywood Reporter doesn't, The Numbers doesn't, which would take out the bulk of the sources we rely on. If you think the article is inappropriately named then you are free to initiate a rename discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Deadline just released their list for 2023, and the Marvels is at the top with an estimated net loss of $237 million. I think it's finally time to add it in. Auzewasright (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it will go to the very top of the list with the biggest bomb in history. Seems impossible not to include it on the list now. Will also need to update the page to link to this list once it's added...assuming it is... Holydiver82 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this will let the discussion on whether to call it a bomb rest. Auzewasright (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Variety [19], The Marvels lost $237 Million dollars, that's a bigger loss that John Carter. Will the film be added to the list? Rov124 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – The Deadline source is counting the production cost as $270 million, but we know from the Carolyn Reid source that Disney received a $55 million subsidy credit from the UK government, bringing the total production cost down from $274.8 million to $219.8 million. So the true loss is really closer to $187 million. For whatever reason, this was not factored into Deadline's analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Feel free to provide reliable sources that show a different loss figure. Otherwise that's just speculation Holydiver82 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  The $55 million tax break is not speculation and is even mentioned/cited in the film article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you disagree with what the reliable sources say. Post up other reliable sources to support your number. Doing your own math is very much speculation and your number is very much not from a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, which requires reliable sources. Not an editors opinion and personal calculation Holydiver82 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  You should probably read my reply below and stop getting so excited. I have no intention of inserting unsourced numbers. However, we can certainly scrutinize the reliability of what is being reported. Deadline claims the production cost was $270 million, but we have a competing reliable source that says it was $219.8 million. If you don't understand what is being discussed here, I advise you sit this one out. Your comments are not contributing to the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your arguing about the total loss, and providing your own figure. Without providing any reliable sources to support that. You should go find reliable sources if you want to suggest a different loss figure Holydiver82 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do you intend to keep repeating yourself? Clearly you do not understand this is about the reliability of the $270 million figure from Deadline. The full production cost is actually $274.8 million (without the tax break) and $219.8 million (with the tax break). Deadline gets neither right, and that's a legitimate concern. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Many of these trades like Deadline and Variety tend to round these figures into different estimates. Forbes (at least Caroline Reid) has a tendency to provide more accurate figures for these budgets. Again, Deadline's figures are estimates, and regardless of their estimated budget, its report is still reliable for the fact that it lost money, which is what the focus should be here. Trying to focus on little details in these estimates is indicative of this process. As long as we note to our readers these are, in fact, estimates, there should be no issue here. Trailblazer101 (talk) Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Trail, ignore the dribble above that blew this way out of proportion. This was more of a side note than a protest, as the discussion below indicates, thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  As long as we have this titled as "Estimated losses", things like tax breaks that offset the loss that don't appear accounted in the actual reliable sources estimating the loss should not affect this list. Accounting for total losses based on multiple sources enters into a territory that WP:SYNTH calculations would be problematic. We want one source to report one complete number and use that. Masem (t) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that while we should not combine sources to produce a problematic WP:SYNTH scenario, we can still scrutinize the accuracy of the source. They are labeling this a "studio" loss and even factored in "interest and overhead", yet they neglected to include a tax break that without a doubt affects the studio's bottom line. It is concerning (unless I'm missing something). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like an oversight, but some of their other estimates could be out as well. I would be amazed if the TV & streaming outperformed the box-office. We do have some wildly differing estimates on the list (see John Carter for example). To definitively state this film lost $237 million would require a secondary source to conduct analysis of audited accounts. That generally only happens in very unique circumstances. This list is essentially a list of the "biggest box-office bombs" based on an approximate quantitative criteria. Whether the film lost $237 million or $187 million, it would seemingly qualify under either scenario, the figures are basically just there to show how they qualified for the list. This is just one estimate at the end of the day, and The Numbers has still yet to update its list for 2023 and that may provide a different figure, and yield a realistic loss range. You could try contacting Deadline to point out they omitted the subsidy—they do pride themselves on accuracy, so I don't see why they wouldn't fix the error in that case. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's also worth pointing out they low-balled the budget for Indy 5 too. Forbes updated the net budget to $326 million with a later set of figures, which hasn't been factored into the loss estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  very true. And I haven't seen any sources include the reshoots which cost millions into the final budget amounts. Most of the Disney films have massive reshoots before release Holydiver82 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Betty, appreciate the insight. It was only my intention to express concern about the numbers so that it was noted somewhere. Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed the oversight! Hopefully we get additional clarity down the road, but if not, it is what it is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I won't pretend I'm not frustrated by it, but we do set ourselves up to fail to some extent with lists like this. We do the best we can with patchy information. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Flushed Away

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

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

add studio to list of information?

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

The table already has enough content as it is related to box office performance. How would the studio(s) suffice in that regard? If it's just to see which films are by which studio, that information can be located at the individual film articles. Rather, a brief overview table listing which studios have the most films that were big box-office bombs would make more sense, though that may be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, which is what I think adding the studios to the table would be, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

purely for curiosity. A table the same way for example the emmy Award list each studio with number would be cool to have. Like each studio and number of films on list. Purely because it's interesting to see. No idea how undue weight impacts this Holydiver82 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The studio has no bearing on whether a film is a bomb or not, and it is not even clear what "studio" means in this capacity. Are we talking production companies (of which there are sometimes many), distributors (of which there are sometimes many)? Either way I don't see the value in either. Even if these were small tables where space wasn't as a premium I would oppose the proposal on the basis that company information serves no encyclopedic purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I could potentially see the value in listing the production company if it were always singular allowing for some kind of sorting, but as Betty states, it is not. So its inclusion wouldn't be beneficial to this chart, especially one that is trying to emphasize numbers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)