This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Wait, I'm confused. The film's budget was $275M and it's box office was $392.9M and yet, it was considered a box office bomb. I know I'm saying that because I haven't read the whole article, but regardless. Why is that?
Christian AKA Rustbolt (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it explains this in the article. Because of advertising and marketing costs, as well as "Hollywood accounting", a movie generally has to make box office of 2.5 times its budget (which is estimated but not divulged by the studio) in order to turn a profit. Movie studios largely exist because of the movies with relatively small budgets that manage to make 10 or more times their budgets in box office ticket sales. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing discussion here. All the posted numbers indicate the gross was higher than the budget, which cannot be debated. What constitutes a “bomb” may or may not be ultimately relevant in the article without knowing the marketing costs. I’d argue these numbers don’t indicate a “bomb” to anyone but people who want to speculate about additional costs the movie had incurred that weren’t posted. If it’s speculative, I don’t know why we’d definitively say it “bombed.” It can have underperformed, it can have not met expectations (but an expectation should be cited). It can be claimed it was a “box office bomb,” but I think it should be indicated in the same area that the film did gross more than its budget. I think that’s a good compromise, which is why I made that edit. Louie Mantia (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be reasonable to rephrase so that the text takes a more neutral point of view but there are three references all calling it a flop or similar synonyms. It is differently misleading to highlight that the gross exceeded the budget, that is far too simplistic considering other costs (P&A) and that approximately only half of the gross revenue actually goes back to the studio. As User:Doctorx0079 said above a film normally needs to gross at least double the budget before it is considered a success. Unless there is a source specifically using the term "bomb" I would avoid it and instead say that the film "under performed". This film was certainly not a financial success, the only question is the degree of failure. -- 109.77.192.135 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll reiterate that we don’t know the marketing budget of these films. All we know are published numbers. Any other speculation around it should be noted as such. While I too would suspect Disney was disappointed in the returns on this film, the writing in this article is/was definitively not neutral. And while it’s fine to remark that it is one of the most expensive films ever made, it was only 1 million dollars off in budget from The Force Awakens, and only 7 million dollars off from The Last Jedi. Neither of those pages remark about being one of the most expensive films ever made. The only reason I can imagine someone wrote that in this article (I suspect) is to draw unnecessary attention to it being another expensive franchise film, only that this one “bombed.” It seems to be explicitly stated here to draw a comparison that makes it look like some kind of tragic underperformance, when in reality it was just another case of high expectations from outside analysts met with a so-so result. That hardly feels like a neutral perspective. Comparatively, John Carter had a budget of 300 million and only took in 284. This was classified as one of the “biggest bombs,” and that feels justified. But in the biggest bombs list, you won’t find Solo, because it’s only really worthwhile to work with published numbers that you can definitively calculate minimum losses. You can’t do that with Solo. Louie Mantia (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user made an edit that I think is much better in its structure comparing the two figures we know. They made an uncited remark in the edit notes that the marketing budget was $200 million. I’ve seen it reported as $150 million. But I’ve also seen Bob Iger say Disney didn’t have to spend much on marketing Star Wars because it markets itself. I’m not saying they didn’t spend anything. I’m just saying we have no idea what it was. Anyway, I feel like the new language resolves this. Louie Mantia (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Budgets are usually more complicated than they seem at first. Also Template:Infobox film warns not to cherry pick, which means that a new source is not an excuse to throw out the old sources. It is very important to read the details of what the source is saying or not saying. The Forbes article lists the budget as $275 million but then immediately qualifies that claim and admits that number is incomplete by saying "is expected to rise as it doesn’t include post-production." The budget was at least $275 million but very probably higher. (We haven't even gotten a reliable source of marketing costs yet either.) Please do not delete the budget range without first discussing and establishing consensus for those changes. -- 109.79.170.63 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to literally the sequel trilogy articles doing the exact same thing, and agreed upon. All of us agreed that the Forbes article overrided any previous sources. If you wanna revert those budgets, do as you please; I will not touch Rogue One and Solo for now. You can talk to User:Betty Logan about it. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"And should we even have a range now? Seems like a known amount at this point."
" Personally that's what I would do. The budget ranges are only intended to apply to estimates, and there is no point to them when there is a publicly available figure that has been audited by Government tax inspectors. We may as well give readers the proper figure." DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed upon? People didn't agree anything, someone just boldly went ahead and did it without any agreement or prior discussion (and limited discussion after the fact saying the range should probably be included). Template:Infobox film is clear " If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick;" but editors ignore it yet again. Removing the old range is vandalism. I have restored the old figure lower but kept the new figure as the higher end of the range.
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize not supplant what is in the article body, and editors adding new figures to the Infobox continue to fail to properly explain in the article body. The new figures need to be properly explained in the article body, which really should be done _before_ updating the Infobox. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems like a known amount at this point." seems like but is not definitive. "publicly available figure that has been audited by Government tax inspectors" audited at a fixed point in time and subjectively interpreted by a journalist who didn't make their assumptions or omissions clear. Unlike so many guidelines Template:Infobox film doesn't equivocate, it clearly says not to cherry pick figures. (It is five years after the fact, look at how crazy inflation has been this year alone. The journalist made conversions from UK tax records in £ pounds sterling to $ dollars, and editors are using the converted figures.) It is naïve to presume that the UK costs were the only costs and the no US costs exist. There is always Hollywood accounting, editors of an encyclopedia must be skeptical, and again the article body should be making some effort to explain these figures and the tax credits in the article body. -- 109.79.64.252 (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
