Talk:Madame Web (film)

box office bomb

https://collider.com/madame-web-box-office-bomb-sony-plans/, just leaving that here as the stories pile up for when someone decides to label this a box office bomb and wants some sources. is anyone even going to fight calling this a bomb assuming nothing changes moving forward? Holydiver82 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

https://movieweb.com/is-sonys-madame-web-a-box-office-success/ have to say its extremely funny how often Madame web is called a bomb in reference to the marvels being a bomb. seems to be the default reference point for how terrible it is Holydiver82 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Holydiver82: Please don't just add a new message just to list any new links you stumble upon as it clogs up the discussion space. Instead, please add the link to the {{Refideas}} template at the top of this talk page. I have added both refs for now, though it would be easier if you could in the future. As for the box-office bomb info, please review MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:HEADLINES in relation to its use and in citations. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

since this is a superhero movie directed by a woman, staring a bunch of women. I am assuming that it is going to take a massive discussion on the talk page to even consider putting box office bomb in the article. might as well start getting the sources up to see what people say. i can try to add to that link thing, i am pretty new to wiki and how citations work and all that will see if i can figure it out. thanks Holydiver82 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't assume bad faith like this, it's not comparable to the discussion surrounding The Marvels, nor are editors trying to do what you're insinuating here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. I'm assuming in order to call it a bomb it will a. Require significant sourcing, b. Be a massive talk page about exactly what to call it. You are reading a lot into what I post. Insinuating what exactly?? Holydiver82 (talk) 03:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems odd to assume that "a superhero movie directed by a woman, staring a bunch of women" means people can't just call the film a bomb right away. That's what I assumed you insinuated, that there's this double standard on this site. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they're referring to bullshit online chatter and discourse surrounding the superhero genre and assuming such unwarranted hate would feed into this article and calling it a bomb (which is really not the place to bring up now) rather than saying such hate is currently being fed on here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

it would seem to fit the exact same mold as other films that had hate, backlash, etc that did poorly. Seems like a good idea to have good sourcing before labeling it in any way.

Would be interesting to see if the box office improves as more people go to watch it ironically because the consensus seems to be its so comically bad its fun to watch Holydiver82 (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Holydiver82 with a production budget of 80 million (not to mention market costs, ect) and the fact that the film stands firmly at only making 93 million, I'd consider it a box office bomb at this point. negative reviews from critics, audiences, and the like. 2600:6C5D:0:A41:6156:28E5:40D5:8043 (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

really the only question is how much news outlets (sources) write articles or comment on its poor box office numbers and if any of them bother to report on the amount of losses. because the bar to include that phrasing in the article is going to be quite high. it seems like most of the articles prefer to write about how terrible it is in general, or comment on how specifically bad almost all of the elements of the film are from the script, dialogue, acting, etc. i have not seen very many sources making comments on it bombing, generally only in reference to the marvels and comparing how they both did at the box office Holydiver82 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Box office flop

As the film has flopped due to a lack of cinema revenue, shouldn't we add the message of this film becoming a box-office flop as it has just past its 3rd weekend and received over $90,000,000 only against a budget just below this number.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2024/02/25/madame-web-box-office-flop-puts-sony-spider-man-universe-in-jeopardy/?sh=5ba77275e3ce Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:ACCLAIMED, we need four or more high-quality reputable/reliable sources that call it such in the body of their web articles (not only in the source titles per WP:HEADLINES) to add and affirm this information. Please see WP:CBFILMRS, WP:RSPSS, and WP:MCURS for reference. That Forbes article may be a halfway decent source, given WP:FORBESCON states Forbes contributors, unlike a "Forbes Staff", are generally unreliable and if they qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert depends on their broad coverage of the topic or subject overall. There is WP:NORUSH in waiting for the rest of the box office performance to be reported and to see what other sites report about it before making a determination on this here, though I will note potential refs are being added to the top of this talk (and I will add this one there in case it becomes useful in the future). Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

when did MOS Acclaimed set the bar at 4? link to that please as that would be useful to confirm Holydiver82 (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

you can also use these sources: https://collider.com/madame-web-box-office-bomb-sony-plans/ and https://movieweb.com/is-sonys-madame-web-a-box-office-success/ ...however unlikely it will be labeled a bomb before it is out of theatres. will be interesting to see what its final box office total is Holydiver82 (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, Forbes is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON and the others are low-quality. We can find better sources, especially after final box office total. ภץאคгöร 17:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

collider is on the list of reliable sources, exactly why would this be considered low quality, and who decides what constitutes high quality? Holydiver82 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly a question of its reliability (or doubting it), it comes down to how accurate the sources are on reporting the box office performance and how they detail what makes a film a "bomb", "dissapointment", "failure", etc. If Collider just blindly said it was a bomb in one instance in an article, that would be frowned upon when compared to an article from say Bloomberg or THR that delves into multiple explanations for why it bombed/failed/etc. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ACCLAIMED states "must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Typically, 3 is not really multiple, those are only a few. 4 and more would be multiple. Even then, these three are poor or low-quality sources to support such box office determinations, hence why they are not currently being used in the article and only are listed at the top as potential sources to look back upon. We should wait for better sources to become available, and this could take months to years. Be patient, there is again WP:NODEADLINE to add such information to this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

certain humor when in order to edit something on wikipedia you have to argue simple definitions of words. multiple means more than 1. if you have 3 of something, you have multiple of that something. if i have 3 apples, i have multiple apples. if that bar for acclaimed is 4 or more, it should clearly state that you need 4 or more sources. i would suspect that multiple is vague on purpose Holydiver82 (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We still would need more than just these ones to make such a claim. MovieWeb and Forbes are still not the best, and only having three sites to support a claim against the other sites used in the article is not really convincing and ill-advised. No one is prohibiting you from editing or "argu[ing]". There's just not enough sources to verifiable support the claim you want to add yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that 4 high-quality sources is a good rule of thumb that I've seen used on other matters regarding MOS:ACCLAIMED, not something that is strictly enforced or limited. We just want the best, most accurate and reliable sources to verify the information we put out there for our readers. If we went with these three sources to support that bomb claim, that would be rushed and these are not the best sources to use solely for that information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – The term "multiple" refers to more than one, and the more you have, the more convincing your argument will be. There's no magical threshold, such as 4, when all of a sudden some argument becomes acceptable. Keep in mind that high-quality sources are only one part of the requirement. Consider a hypothetical situation involving 100 sources discussing the box office performance of a certain film. 5 sources mention "bomb" or "flop", and among them, only 2 are high-quality. Does that mean we have a solid case for inclusion, when the other 95 sources didn't mention "bomb" or "flop" at all? Probably not. On the other hand, if you had 10-15 sources calling it a "bomb" or "flop" with 2-3 high-quality sources among them, then yes the case for inclusion would be much stronger. There's never a guaranteed threshold, however.
  I'm not saying that's the case here with Madame Web (as I haven't been following along), but focusing too intently on the high-quality source requirement may cause you to lose sight of basic editing principles regarding content significance as described in WP:DUE. The "bomb" or "flop" label must still have a significant presence in sources to begin with (both low and high quality). Holydiver82, if you are trying to make a case for inclusion, then make one. List the sources and state your case or move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  if this standard was applied to all of Wikipedia then no article would ever label a film a bomb. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone say that the number of sources that simply do not mention certain words or make no comment on its box office numbers are a factor. Where in mos acclaimed is that located as I was told to read it more carefully Holydiver82 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Put MOS:ACCLAIMED to the side for moment. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), "fairly representing all significant viewpoints" in proportion to their prominence in sources. This is described in more detail at WP:WEIGHT. Minor aspects that receive very little coverage, as well as views that represent a tiny minority, may not be worthy of inclusion according to this policy. Even when deemed worthy of inclusion, they are usually placed in the body of the article and not mentioned in the lead section. The lead is only meant for summarizing a topic's most important aspects.

  NPOV is just one of several requirements. For exceptional and extraordinary claims (which we consider loaded language like "bomb" to be), another requirement is WP:EXCEPTIONAL that deals with high-quality sources and is what MOS:ACCLAIMED is modeled after. EXCEPTIONAL and WEIGHT are both policies on Wikipedia. Bottom line is that there's a difference between meeting the bare minimum (2-3 high-quality sources) and greatly exceeding the bare minimum (3+ high-quality sources paired with a significant percentage of lower-quality sources). The more you bring to the table, the better your chances. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Home media

Madame web also has to be included in the Disney+ and Netflix deal in the USA not just the Canada crave deal 2605:B100:533:D477:6802:7CD7:93F5:ED0F (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We need a source identifying Madame Web as part of that deal and for its inclusion on those services. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

But that Sony and Disney+ source includes all of Sonys library titles like kraven, Madame web, from 2022-2026 theatrical releases 2605:B100:521:B079:B9FC:5E15:352E:B928 (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s got a Netflix USA streaming release date revealed 2605:B100:528:B58D:553:B563:71D9:B3F9 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Per my reverts on this, the information on its Netflix release comes from What's on Netflix, which is an WP:Unreliable source and thus, can't be used. Any sources reporting on this information from an unreliable source also cannot be used, per WP:FRUIT. We don't know that the Netflix deal automatically applies to this film, and assuming it does to justify this unreliable source is WP:Original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please be patient, as there is WP:NORUSH for a reliable, independent source to confirm this information, or for it to actually release, at which point sources not citing the unreliable one could be available. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it literally just says that every time a Sony marvel movie heads to Netflix USA that fucking crave tv Canada deal thing is already a scam 2605:B100:528:B58D:553:B563:71D9:B3F9 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That holds no constructive relevance to this discussion. We can't use the source you added, as while it itself is reliable, its information comes from an unreliable source, which is What's on Netflix, and as such, we can't use it. That is per WP:FRUIT. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources for Netflix and Disney's deals also make no mention of this film, which is why they are not included. Unless it is directly stated, we cannot include the information stemming from our own determination of which films could apply to that deal's timeframe. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And now that Netflix confirmed the release, a source basing off of that information and not from the other source has been added to the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Press release problem

"...the film was produced by Columbia Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures in association with Marvel Entertainment and TSG Entertainment." ‎Trailblazer101, this whole sentence violates WP:PROMO in sounding like it comes from a press release. These companies are not written organically into the lead section, much less the production-focused paragraph. It is instead shoehorned in to tout corporate credentials. It is false to claim that this sentence is part of summarizing the article. For example, Columbia and TSG are not mentioned as part of the "Production" section. (If anything, Sony is the main company to mention because it is the studio behind the film, not just distributing it, and reliable sources will likely reiterate "Sony" many more times than the other companies.) Please recognize that the group of editors who work on comic book and superhero film articles have done a horrible job of presenting topics in the lead section (including prioritizing such companies over even mentioning specific superheroes and starring actors in these roles). It doesn't matter what an editor's intent with including it is, it's about the appearance of impropriety. Restoring it to a later point is marginally better, but it is still utterly inorganic in its incorporation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Batman (film) is a good example. 6th & Idaho and Dylan Clark Productions are more prominently placed than even the director and the starring actor. They're not even mentioned in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that many of these articles do not handle the lead properly, although removing all of the studios involved is not the way to go about this, given there may still be some confusion over which studio produced this film (as evident by prior talk page discussions). Based on those discussions, the most relevant studios ought to remain somewhere in the lead. I do not believe that a mention of Sony as part of the franchise's name is enough to make this clear, though directly linking to Sony in the second lead para should suffice. Regarding The Batman, I am currently involved in a c/e-ing of that one, so I will take that into account. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention studios in general because reliable sources will talk about them often, especially for blockbuster films. The issue is the prominent placement all the companies under these studios, which is WP:UNDUE. My takeaway from WP:LEAD and other policies/guidelines is outlined in my essay at WP:FILM1STSENTENCE (apologies if you've already seen it) to prioritize the elements that the reliable sources are discussing. While it's focused on the first sentence, I think the principle extends to the first few sentences to establish to the reader the relevant contexts of the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I understand. While I am one who likes these different technical facts, I understand not everyone does and that it can sometimes be overused or overlooked because of my familiarity with the other articles that employ it this way. It was admittedly silly placing di Bonaventura's company and TSG so prominently here. Thanks for the refresher! Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2 scene?

Should we include the reusing of a Spider-Man 2 scene at the end of the movie in the reception section? It does seem like something that was criticized. HiGuys69420 (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports this being criticized in several reviews? If not, I do not think it is worth mentioning. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I have several sources noting it:

https://screencrush.com/madame-web-reuses-spider-man-shot/

https://www.screengeek.net/2024/02/18/madame-web-spider-man-2-footage/

https://comicbookmovie.com/spider_man/madame-web/madame-web-recycles-footage-from-spider-man-2-but-what-if-anything-does-it-mean---spoilers-a209412 HiGuys69420 (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a very minor and arbitrary detail and all three of these unreliable sources cite the same random Twitter account. None of these are critical responses to this very brief scene, so I don't think this warrants any mention in this article, especially in "Reception". Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you trailblazer HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)