Talk:The Marvels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Box Office Bomb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus coalesced around the use of "
WP:HEADLINE). Editors hope to revisit this down the line when there is more in-depth analysis published (such as academic sources). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The movie is tracking toward a worse box office than "The Flash". Would that make it a "Bomb" or some other underwhelming verb use? What should be used to characterize this abject failure? -- Sleyece (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources calling it that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't handle the truth??
107.19.11.186 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We ain't believing it Box-office Bomb yet. It's still Potential but we check analyst sometimes. Happiness is Simple (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why downplay the fact that the film did poorly and subsequently give protection of the article? It seems like people here just can't handle the truth. 107.19.11.186 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the world's not going to end tomorrow. We can wait a month or two for the reliable sources to start talking about it. What people seem to forget is that Wikipedia is a summary of already published materials and should be slow in including current events. DonQuixote (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be fair, the Little Mermaid remake was a box office failure as cited by Forbes etc because it didn't recuperate its marketing costs, and that was released almost half a year ago, but the page is still protected and no one can put box office failure. Is Disney controlling wikipedia or something? Because other non-Disney films like Flash and Blue Beetle were immediately labelled as flops. 2A02:C7C:84A2:CC00:B922:A1DA:508B:C4E6 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really true for Blue Beetle. I tried to include the box-office bomb info when it became statistically improbable for it to not be one, and was met with a deluge of people telling me to not rush to judgement because unlikely things can happen, etc. etc. You can read all about it on the talk page there. Eventually I concluded, that even though it is nonsensical to wait for a 1 in a 1,000 chance of the movie coming out of the box-office bomb trajectory, the inclusion of the phrase prior to the movie ending its run biases people who read that on Wikipedia, which then slightly affects the final revenue. So essentially, I am against that kind of information on Wikipedia influencing the content of the very same article. Sensibly, I think we should wait for about the entire run of the movie to be done before including that info so that it doesn't affect the final figure in the box info. I think this is a good policy going forward. However, I can also understand why including the statistically inevitable earlier is a strong position as that was my original position for Blue Beetle. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just it. They can't handle the truth. Other films have been labelled as box office bombs far sooner than this, yet the Little Mermaid remake which is now on home media still doesn't say box office bomb even though it didn't recover its marketing costs. Disney is playing a role here, partly silencing wikipedia. Its plain and obvious. 2A02:C7C:84A2:CC00:B922:A1DA:508B:C4E6 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORUSH when it still likely has a few more months of theatrical play before it's all said and done. The article notes it has the potential to become a bomb, that's the best we can do right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I rarely comment over political issues and especially movies but in this case, the complete lack of objectivity by some Wikipedia editors is too glaring. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia i.e. stick to the facts. Just in terms of dollars and cents, there is no question that "The Marvels" is a financial failure. Apparently, even Disney's Bob Iger is no longer denying it (see https://ew.com/disney-bob-iger-explains-why-the-marvels-flopped-at-box-office-8409177 ). Four weekends have passed by, since its opening. Its marketing/promotion costs are at $100M. This means the movie has to make at least $300M, bare minimum, to brake even and some are quoting even higher numbers. You don't have several months; the days of DVD recovery are long over. No miracles will happen. Something has to give and you have to be consistent. Wiki calls The Flash "one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time", which was really a 'wishful' prediction largely resulting from a loathing of the film's leading actor, yet The Flash performed better. It is a moot point as to why the movie failed or what you think of the movie but there is no denying that "The Marvels" is a box-office bomb, certainly the worst performance in the MCU so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a movie. The world's not going to end just because Wikipedia doesn't declare that it's a bomb four weeks into its theatrical run. Seriously, it's just a mediocre film that, apparently, not many people care about. There's absolutely
no rush till the final nail's in the coffin. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, the term box office bomb is already used in the lead and in the "Box office" subsection under Reception. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just a movie then why is it that almost every day, there are emerging YouTube videos analyzing the movie's failures? If it's just a movie, then why the resistance on the part of some Wiki editors in admitting it's a box office bomb? When is that so-called "final nail in the coffin"? Anyway, I am fine with the lead. The only thing I am quibbling with, is the sentence "Some publications labeled the film a box office bomb". IMHO, That should be "The film is considered to be a box office bomb" and leave it at that for now. At some point, you might want to make a mention in the List of biggest box office bombs. I estimate the loss, so far, at $100M, but it could be more. Also, the wiki site for the Flash movie needs to be revised. Clearly, it is not one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time: for example, a number of recent products under the Disney purview fall more into that category. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/08/04/the-four-flops-of-2023-that-cost-disney-1-billion/?sh=2632a77d3bed — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there are emerging YouTube videos analyzing the movie's failures" - this is the case for all film and TV projects that certain parts of the internet consider to be "woke" and deserving of their time and effort to constantly analyse and tear down. On Wikipedia we are not concerned with that sort of nonsense. We go off what reliable sources are saying about the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's loads of youtube videos claiming that the earth is flat. So what? Again, Wikipedia is a summary of previously published materials in reliable sources and thus can't help but be slower than the reliable sources. Seriously, Cats, Waterworld and Cutthroat Island had more coverage. If you want to speed things up, it would be more productive to cite reliable sources.
When is that so-called "final nail in the coffin"?
Probably more than a few weeks but less than half a year. Seriously, expect sloth-speeds from
tertiary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Waterworld came out in 1995, at a time when a movie could recover by home videos and become profitable, as it did. Cats has had many incarnations and Cutthroat Island was an absolute box office bomb. The other comments are just gaslighting and remind me of Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch where the pet shop owner denies the parrot is dead and the disgruntled customer insists Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it!. For "The Marvels", it's a simple manner of dollars and cents and you have reported the numbers. Aren't the source of these numbers sufficiently reliable? The Marvels IS a box-office bomb as correctly pointed out by the lead. The box office section just needs to reflect that. That's all. In the unlikely event that some miracle happens (within the absurd period of 6 months?) and this movie becomes profitable, you can always adjust its Wikipedia page accordingly. After all, as some of you pointed out: it's just a movie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in my above comment, the box office section does reflect that ("box office bomb", "It is the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, "The 78% drop was the all-time largest for a Marvel film and the worst for any Hollywood superhero film in modern history", etc). It has paragraph on the numbers and a paragraph on potential causes for the poor box office performance (using reliable secondary sources & not random internet commentary like YouTube). I'm not entirely sure why you're continuing to argue for inclusion when it is already included. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok now with the changes made Dec. 4 and 5. Thank you.TonyMath (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My citations, detailed presumptions based on proven data, has been reverted back, just because I'm "an IP", I'm "jumping the gun", and I'm "suspicious."
If IPs are not reliable despite all the proofs, then don't allow them to make edits, instead of this Hitler-like superiority complex. A film earning around the budget is a bomb, and this one isn't even going to earn that. I'm not even talking about gross budget of $274 million, but the reduced $219 million budget. It's a bomb from second weekend. If you don't put it there, you're fooling the readers. Truth should matter more. Why the wait? People won't even visit this page that often once it's Outta theaters. Sources also tell that it needed $439 million for breaking-even, thanks to a $55 million subsidy. Is it suddenly going to double its earnings over the Christmas weekend? Only 960 screens have been left according to The Numbers. Per theater average is less than $100 over the weekend, less than Oppneheimer's. It's going to lose at least $150 million at this rate. And of course, the world isn't going to end it you stick this truth to the page.117.207.212.71 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your blatant unprofessional comments, sources have noted it could be a box office bomb, although this cannot be definitively called until the film has ended its entire theatrical run (which it has yet to). Just because Disney has stopped reporting its gross and the number of theatres it plays in has gone dow does not mean we can just call it ourselves, especially when the sources presently in the article calling it a bomb were from closer to its release and are not as up-to-date with the current figures, let alone what the final gross will be. Your persistent reverting to your preferred version has become disruptive (given you reverted the updated gross for figures that were out of date), especially after I told you to take to the talk and cease being disruptive (which you have proven to be again in this very discussion). No one holds anything against you for being an IP, Wikipedia has high standards that is set and must be abided by. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has made me lose all faith in Wikipedia. Idk if you're all paid off by disney, or if you're putting politics before facts... but this movie bombed. 2600:6C44:77F:9DDB:3926:7D06:AAEA:6C2F (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we are in
WP:NORUSH to definitively state such given there is about another week or so left in its theatrical run. We do currently note how publications have reported it to be as such so it is not like that article is completely void of this notion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
“given there is another week or so left in its theatrical run”
I want you to think to yourself, does this film, which is currently still around $10 million below its production budget, have enough steam left in the tank to push another $250 million to at the very least break even? The movie is essentially done with its run, is far below its budget, but you’re still saying we wait until we know that it truly bombed. Buddy, the movie bombed. There’s no way around it. Zvig47 (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that Wikipedia's purview is to cite and summarise what reliable sources are saying. That is, we start with a direct quote and start paraphrasing that. Any analysis is the purview of
secondary sources, of which Wikipedia is not. DonQuixote (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As I suspected, you simply cannot handle the truth. There's no spinning it, The Marvels has straight up bombed at the box office.
Larry Sanger was right about you guys. Wake up. 107.19.11.186 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys This film is definitely a Bomb.

Please stop removing that from the header. UnboundBeartic (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a lot of silly edit warring going on right now over whether or not to refer to the film as a box-office bomb, or, and even sillier edit warring going on over how to refer to it as a box office bomb ("some labelling the film as a box-office bomb" vs just calling it a bomb).
There are plenty of credible sources which have called it a box-office bomb: ([1]BBC, [2]Variety Magazine, [3]Forbes, [4]The Hollywood Reporter and [5]Yahoo Finance, amongst others.
Regardless, by Wikipedia's own definition of a Box-office bomb, The Marvels is one, having failed to have broken even at the box office.
This film seems to have this bizarre following online where a certain subset of die-hard fans just can't accept that the film was a failure, commercially or critically, including it seems some Wikipedia editors. 2A02:C7E:310D:3C00:58DB:8E8A:23AC:57A (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. To be fair, some editors are steely-eyed realists acting in good faith and realize, like myself, that this is a cut-and-dried dollars and cents issue regardless of what one may personally think about the movie. However, other editors are stubbornly burying their heads in the sand denying what has become glaringly obvious: 1) This movie had the worst opening in the MCU. 2) Weekend after weekend yielded ever diminishing returns. 3) A theatrical run for a movie is between four weeks and 45 days. I live in a major metropolitan area. When this movie was first released, it had many showtime slots in a half-dozen movie theaters. For weeks now, only 1, maybe 2 daily showings are shown and in only one theater. So this movie is past its shelf life and we will soon be in 2024. 4) There is no chance this movie will ever reach the break-even point estimated to be at least $300M (including production and marketing) since the old days of recovery by video or DVD are long over. 5) Disney execs have already admitted the movie is a failure (as the wiki site admits). If this Wiki site does not admit this movie is a box office bomb, it will be a strangely paradoxical example of where Wikipedia's credibility was shot to hell for the sake of a mere movie. TonyMath (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a cut-and-dried dollars and cents issue because we don’t have access to the studio’s finances. The only thing we have to go on is what sources say. If they call it a bomb, then it’s a bomb. But looking at the 5 sources mentioned by the IP above, they only use that term within the headline, which isn’t enough for us:
WP:HEADLINE. Are there other reliable sources that describe the movie as a bomb, in their body text? For what it’s worth, I also think it’s pretty obviously a bomb, but I’m not a reliable source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's be reasonable. Obviously, we don't have access to the studio's finances. Wikipedia has an organization of editors, not auditors. However, I don't think we need to. We can just use the information made publicly available. All you have to do is take the Box office return values that Wiki has been reporting vs the time since the movie was released and compare it with the value of the break even point. Make a graph and just do the arithmetic on the dollars and cents. The obvious conclusion is buttressed by those sources ranging from BBC to Yahoo Finance and that Bob Iger admits the movie is a failure (and Bob Iger likely knows the studio's finances). We can try to find more sources but isn't that enough? If it's not enough, then how can Wikipedia make any pronouncements on movies like the "The Flash" (2023)? For myself, today's version of this Wiki page at the time of this message is good enough for me. TonyMath (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one's denying the film hasn't done well at the box office, just that the descriptive word of "box-office bomb" isn't used anywhere in the main article body of reliable sources. Why is calling it a "disappointment" not enough? Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What can I tell you? Box-office bomb is already defined in the vernacular used by Wikipedia and that includes definitions. That terminology has been applied to a number of films including, of course, The Flash (film). This also extends to a List of biggest box-office bombs which shows bonafide examples. It seems Wikipedia already has an answer to your question. TonyMath (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters here is what the sources say, not through original research or citing Wikipedia itself. The Flash and other bombs are described as bombs by reliable sources, so the articles reflect the sources in question. For the Marvels to count, it needs actual sources that describe it as a bomb in its main body. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OMG (I hope this is my last iteration). With all due respect, you're flogging a dead horse by splitting hears with minutia. E.g. however reputable the sources for the 2023 movie "The Flash" were, it was judged as "one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time" early on, long before the theatrical run was over, largely, it seems, because of the controversy surrounding its lead actor, Ezra Miller. In spite of that bias, Wikipedia accepted that verdict. Yet, that movie's revenue exceeded its production cost though it did not entirely cover the promotion cost and failed to reach the break-even point. Fine. I don't understand why the mention of "bomb" in most of the headings of the aforementioned sources is insufficient and that you also need the word "bomb" in the body of these sources as well. There is no need for research. Just stick with Wikipedia's criteria, and IMHO, the most important and objective thing i.e. the NUMBERS. You're splitting hairs by trying to replace the word "bomb" with "failure" or "disappointment". When a movie cannot reach the break-even point, it's a bomb, especially if the loss is a minimum of $100M USD. Sorry. Alea iacta est. TonyMath (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the film myself, but that's besides the point. And you do need research to back up your claims, that's what sourcing is for. Wikipedia doesn't have a criteria for bombs, it goes by what reliable sources say. And as for "I don't understand why the mention of "bomb" in most of the headings of the aforementioned sources is insufficient", have you read
WP:HEADLINE? Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I would also suggest reading
exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources." Mike Allen 14:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Guys, we're also suppose to apply common sense when applying these criteria. In particular, we have to harmonize or prioritize these criteria if they tug in different directions. Otherwise, we have a tug of war. We can't please everything and everybody. If the body of the article or text you cite does not contradict or rather complements the spirit of the title, common sense tells me you are allowed to use that title. When it comes to specifics like Box office status, the numbers matter the most. At any rate, we have reached the end of 2023. The Box office needle is not going to move much. You should perhaps focus your attention on the main superhero movie that was released just before Xmas, namely Aquaman 2. It also has its controversies and is not doing nearly as well as its predecessor Aquaman but at least it seems to have covered its production costs though it has yet to reach the break even point. TonyMath (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page isn't about Aquaman 2, and how well that's done is genuinely irrelevant to this discussion. We aren't "waiting for the needle to move" on the Marvels' box office either, we're just going by what reliable sources say. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then look for those so-called 'reliable sources'. Find them. If you cannot find them, don't expect to think you can compromise the article as it stands because nobody has found enough to satisfy your demands. TonyMath (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not compromising the article, since those reliable sources are the ones being used in the article right now, which don't say "bomb" in their main text body. Per
WP:HEADLINE, that means we can't use the term "box-office bomb" in the article. We can't rely on our vague intuition based on just looking at the numbers, we're going by what's actually been written about those numbers by reliable sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
this essay). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Being able to count and seeing that the Box office returns at $205.6 million is obviously less than the production costs and less than half of the break-even point of $439.6 million is NOT what I would call "original research". You just need to count. Finding these so-called 'reliable sources' to satisfy your demands is NOT my burden. Even Reuters admits the movie failed. If you insist that "Box Office Bomb" is a term you cannot use, you're burdened in having to find the terminology to adequately describe the current state of affairs w.r.t. the movie's poor performance. How do you describe "the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run" in a nutshell? What term is sufficiently commensurate with that? BTW, we are in 2024 and this movie has stop playing at the local theaters in the city I currently live in. Its theatrical run is over. If you perniciously succeed in denying this movie's abysmal financial failure, you will be compromising Wikipedia's credibility. TonyMath (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the main debate is between "box-office bomb" and "box-office disappointment" (which link to the same article) with exact phrasing in the lead & box office section TBD; the entire box office section is focused on the financial failure and no one is suggesting removing that. We have plenty of sources (
MOS:ACCLAIMED, etc) will not prove your point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Have it your way. My main arguments have been the numbers and prioritizing and harmonizing between various policies. I fail to see how stating that one and one is two, is an ad-hominem attack (?) However, if you insist on calling the movie a "Box Office disappointment" rather than a "Box Office bomb", I will not stop you but in view of the numbers which have pretty well reached convergence by now, IMHO it now becomes a pointless game of semantics with no benefit. It would be easier just to distance yourselves from the subject and simply state that a number of sources call it a "Box Office Bomb" as opposed to stating that it is a "bomb". That is a simpler solution for your policies issue. It also avoids any perceived discrepancy between the use of "Box Office Bomb" in the heading of the sources you quote and what you actually state, not to mention the latter with the rather crippling discussion in the "Box Office" section. TonyMath (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reading this talk page was so comical. legit one of the funniest things I have ever read. the amount of mental gymnastics done to justify not wanting to call it a box office bomb when it basically defines the phrase is just amazing.
1. why, why is it so important to not call it a bomb? would love to know why that is the hill to die on
2. for humorous reference, the film black adam had a budget of 190-260 per wiki (less than the marvels) and gross box office of 393 mill per wiki (much more than the marvels)
and yet is listed in the black adam article as a box office bomb, based on all the exact same criteria (headline says box office bomb, article about it just mentions how much money the studio will lose)
but I mean come on its wikipedia, if the bias wasnt comically obvious it wouldnt be fun to read. we all see the bias, we all know why, die on the hill if you want its good fun to read 152.44.162.18 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important to call it a bomb, and it's not important to not call it a bomb. The only important thing is that the article reflects the due balance of what reliable sources say, and that's the same criteria used for every article including this one and Black Adam. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the reliable sources say the exact same thing for both of the films.
which is why it is so funny to see this massive argument over calling it exactly what it is, a box office bomb.
the truly funny part is watching the semantic gymnastics, more specifically the endless rabbit hole of more and more ridiculous reasons to not call it a bomb.
need sources, ok sources say its a bomb. ok but sources say it in title not in text. ok they do that to, well those are not the "most reliable" so you need some arbitrary and subjective bar for which sources are the most reliable and then exactly where in the text they say the exact word
the point being, the people editing this have a very specific interest in not labeling it a bomb and will just keep moving the goalposts in order to meet that goal.
and then you all wonder why people point out wikipedia bias. comical 152.44.162.18 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who's taking issue with the page not stating "box office bomb" has, surprisingly, not produced a single, reliable source that categorically describes the film as such while also not failing
WP:HEADLINE. See the subsection below on an attempt to do so and what the results yielded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
https://collider.com/the-marvels-box-office-bomb/
In body of article calls the film a box office bomb. Not just the headline. Therefore does not fail the headline test
I look forward to whatever excuses come now to claim that doesn't count.
Exactly why not calling this box office bomb Exactly what it is, is so important to the woke wiki editors is hilarious 2600:1010:B14D:9573:B4B3:5CE6:2C8D:9AC6 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article's already been brought up in the source analysis section below, so I don't see any denial going on. And for that matter, no one's denying the film didn't do well either. Accusing people here of being "woke wiki editors" is not helping. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the guy I replied to claimed that no one had provided a source calling it a bomb outside the headline.
Clearly that was a lie. Which is why i reposted the article that clearly shows a source in article stating its a bomb
And yet here we are.
Just to be clear you agree the obvious fact it was a box office bomb as stated by the stated sources 2601:204:E384:44D0:F431:9533:6743:1487 (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one source (which is included down below), and thus this is all still failing
WP:HEADLINE, plus the proposed options for wording presenting options we could take. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
did not disappoint!
you said and I quote "not produced a single, reliable source that categorically describes the film as such while also not failing WP:HEADLINE"
that was a lie, as a source was already provided. so now you switch from the headline defense to acclaimed defense when caught in a easy to check lie
and who gets to decide how many is required for multiple. 2? that would be multiple, is that enough?
high quality, a completely subjective judgement call. who gets to decide what sources are "high quality"
as said before, the goalposts will always be moved to require some arbitrary requirement that can never be met to avoid a comically obvious fact.
you will always find some reason to defend the film, some wiki standard that you can try to use to avoid it.
tried headline, failed, will try acclaimed, if that fails I am sure there is something else you can think of. comical 152.44.162.18 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow procedures and policies on Wikipedia. We can't just say something when most sources don't actually reflect that in the most accurate terms. Plenty of editors are collaboratively discussing how to best address all of the factual information surrounding this subject, if you are
WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia and just want to complain and target other editors, you can WP:Let it go or you may be reported for your inappropriate and disruptive behavior. After all, engaging on talk pages or editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and anything that is seen as disruptive, unconstructive, and uncivil is largely frowned upon. Multiple editors have provided a valid rationale for the edits and how this process is being conducted, so let the natural discussion process occur and you are free to participate in it civily. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
how many is multiple, who decides what is "high quality"
you are trying to claim to be objective about reporting while putting a highly subjective goalpost in order to list something in the article.
4 of the articles list the movie as a bomb in the text of the article. is that multiple? are they high quality sources. if not, why not. who decides
I see a bunch of people going in circles doing everything possible to sugar coat reality as much as possible while still feigning reporting the reality 152.44.162.18 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Beetle_(film)
"Blue Beetle grossed $72.5 million in the United States and Canada, and $56.8 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $129.3 million. The movie was deemed a box-office bomb and is the lowest-grossing film in the DCEU."
per this wiki entry, listed as a box office bomb.
it has 3 sources.
only 2 of them use the word bomb
only 1 of them use the word bomb in the article text
those sources are the same that are listed in the marvels discussion below, gizmodo, collider, etc
let the mental gymnastics continue 152.44.162.18 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean the same conditions and facts would automatically apply to another subject. We operate on a case-by-case basis. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
the point of that is, there seems to be a very focused and determined effort to protect this film that is not seen on other recent superhero films.
where other films are also correctly called a box office bomb, for some reason (real mystery) the editors are going to extraordinary lengths to not use the exact same terms commonplace for other films in extremely similar situations. they are dragging out every possible wiki rule or standard or subjective goalpost to not do what is done for other similar films
odd? 152.44.162.18 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't care about this film, I haven't even seen it. Nor am I trying to hide its failure at ths box office, again no one is denying that. What I do care is when editors are accused of having agendas they don't have, or the wording of reliable sources is overwritten by editors looking for a reason to rag on Wikipedia being "woke". Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

  1. McClintock, Pamela (November 11, 2023). "Box Office Bomb: 'The Marvels' Opening to $47M-$52M in New Low for Marvel Studios". The Hollywood Reporter.
  2. Rubin, Rebecca (November 12, 2023). "Box Office: 'The Marvels' Misfires With $47 Million, Lowest MCU Opening Weekend of All Time". Variety.
  3. Tassi, Paul (November 20, 2023). "Like It Or Not, 'The Marvels' Has Now Bombed In Every Way Possible". Forbes.
  4. Barnes, Brooks (November 12, 2023). "Marvel Flounders at the Box Office With 'The Marvels'". The New York Times.
  5. Bushby, Helen (November 13, 2023). "The Marvels: Superhero movie bombs with lowest MCU box office debut". BBC
  6. Lussier, Germain (December 4, 2023). "Disney Gives Up on The Marvels". Gizmodo.
  7. Jones, Tamera (November 14, 2023). "What Made 'The Marvels' the MCU's First Box Office Bomb?". Collider.
  8. D'Alessandro, Anthony (November 12, 2023). "‘The Marvels’ Meltdown: Disney MCU Posts Lowest B.O. Opening Ever At $47M — What Went Wrong – Sunday Update". Deadline.
    1. D'Alessandro, Anthony (December 29, 2023). "‘Aquaman 2’, ‘Wonka’ & More Propel Christmas Week Box Office To $281M, +14% Over 2022". Deadline.
  9. Hibberd, James (December 7, 2023) "The Biggest Hollywood Winners and Losers of 2023: From Margot Robbie to Marvel". The Hollywood Reporter

Per the discussion above on sources being needed, let's actually step in the direction of analyzing the sources the article uses for the statement under

box-office disappointment (which redirects to the box-office bomb article), none of the sources for the statement actually use bomb in the article text. Feel free to add sources to list above if you find any that support the phrasing "box-office disappointment" vs "box-office bomb. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

In terms of new sources, the NYT & BBC (#4 & 5) would support "disappointment" but not "bomb" while Gizmodo & Collider (#6 & 7) use the term "bomb" in the text of the article. Specifically, Gizmodo states "first real box office bomb" & "One bomb in 30 or so" & Collider states "Marvel's first box office bomb". Since the higher quality sources (NYT, BBC, THR, etc) don't use the term "bomb", I don't think that phrase should be used in the lead. But since there are some industry focused outlets using the term, it could used or quoted in the box office section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this Sariel. I've added two Deadline Hollywood articles, which would be viewed on par with the other higher quality sources as an industry trade. The second was added because it states Compared with the first week of The Marvels ($54.8M), the fish man is pacing 6% ahead of that Marvel Studios/Disney bomb, which is in relation to Aquaman 2's box office. The first one, which is specifically centered mostly on this film and it's opening weekend, does not use "bomb" really at all in the context we are looking for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter claims that the film "became the biggest bomb in MCU history". It's worth noting that such wording with a semi-copula is scarce in the body of sources which rather describe word box office-performances inline in terms of tracking a day-to-day trajectory. I don't think it will be easy to find many sources using a proper copula because it is not natural for (contemporary) news report to do so. Perhaps in the future, with more analytical sources, you could have better luck.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking ahead as we are getting close to a consensus on wording below, do we feel the sources we should use for the phasing leaning towards below (Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise.) are the Gizmodo, Collider, and Hibberd THR sources? I think those are the only ones we can use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assessment. The other sources fail HEADLINES or don't directly refer to it with the bomb terminology. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so we have multiple sources, and the quality meets the standards.
And we have moved on to "the context isn't right"
Whatever subjective opinion is required to not call a spade a space
As i said multiple times before. No matter what is provided the standards will always be changed to fit the narrative already decided by the people determined to not call it a bomb 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed phrasing

Proposed phrasing options:

  1. Disappointment focused terminology (as seen in this edit)
    1. Lead: While grossing $205 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, it was a
      box-office disappointment, the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run.
    2. Box office section: It was the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and a box-office disappointment, falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable.
  2. Bomb focused terminology (as seen in this edit
)
  1. Lead: While grossing $205 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, it was a box-office bomb, the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run.
  2. Box office section: It was the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and a box-office bomb, falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable.
  • Mixed terminology
    1. Lead: While grossing $205 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, it was a
      box-office disappointment, the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run.
    2. Box office section: It was the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and a box-office disappointment, falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable. Some industry focused outlets have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise.
    3. Note: Exact referenced "industry outlets" (Gizmodo, etc) are found in above discussion on sources
    .
  • Altered C Wording (proposed by Favre1fan93)
    1. Lead: The film underperformed at the box-office, grossing $205 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, which was the lowest-grossing film in the MCU and one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run.
    2. Box office section: It was the lowest-grossing film in the MCU, and underperformed at the box-office, falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly needing to earn around $700 million to become profitable. Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise.

    • Added some phrasing ideas so we can be more focused; I've assumed that we'll be able to pull sources from the discussion above when we go to update the article itself. Feel free to update the list if you have alternative ideas. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option C - I think per
      WP:HEADLINES) when discussing how the film is a financial disappointment. However, I do think we can include that terminology in some fashion by attributing it to specific outlets (ie. Industry focused outlets, such as Gizmodo and Collider, have labeled...). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • See two indented bullets below Option C, though I don't really like the phrase "industry outlets". Something like "publications" or the like would be sufficient in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
      • I also support Hzh's suggestion below in option c to use "commercial failure" or "box-office failure" terminology instead of box office disappointment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Option D as I have added that to the options per some of the thoughts and comments below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option C: I agree with this wording the most, and I believe using "disappointment" gets the message across with its poor box office performance and is a more neutral term than "box-office bomb". I also think, as Favre addressed, that we could just say "publications" for that info as it comprises the bulk of what these sources are. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC) My new vote is given below. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option C, per Sariel Xilo's reasoning. However, the current dispute lies in the wording of its box office (i.e. box office disappointment vs box office bomb), so I'm a bit afraid that the dispute will still occur if we implement this option. (But at least we have this discussion to point to if that happens.) I also support Favre's suggestion of using "publication" instead of "industry outlets". Jolly1253 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option C with adjustment. I don't really like the term "box office bomb", it's too colloquial, and not quite suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly in the lede. But, I feel "box-office disappointment" sounds too much like an euphemism that doesn't reflect the true situation, for example, a film can make a profit at the box office, but can still be a disappointment if it was initially expected to perform extremely well. "Disappointment" does not necessary imply that a film bombed (and I don't think anyone disputes that the film bombed). A "box office bomb" instead says what it is, which is that the film failed badly commercially. I would suggest replacing "box office disappointment" with "commercial failure" or "box-office failure" in the lede, but it's fine to use "box-office bomb" in the Box office section as a description by commentators. Hzh (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It is misleading and incomplete to compare just the production budget to the box office gross. This is a bad practice, and editors should not be endorsing that. The text should reflect how much it cost to make and market the film, and as The New York Times said, that is $300 million. So text like the "break-even point" is correct, and none of the options focused on only two figures, production budget and box office gross, should be considered. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is true. The marketing cost and other figures should be accounted for, especially when there are given figures for films (such as in this instance). Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it is misleading on purpose. that is kind of the point, the goal is to try to do everything possible to present the film as less of a disaster for disney/marvel as possible.
      that is why we have the massive argument over phrasing like "disappointment" instead of bomb. that is why it has a net after tax credits budget listed which is very rare on wikipedia to show instead of just gross budget. and why only the stated net credit initial budget is used
      the funniest part is where they list the "break even" as 439.6, clearly they just took the net after tax and doubled it. but then say it would have to make 700 million to be profitable (this number is far more likely to be accurate, would estimate the total cost at around 350million which with all the delay, reshoots, 100 mill in marketing, would be a fair number)
      but that makes no sense, how could a movie break even at 440 million but need to make 700 million to be profitable. it would be profitable as soon as it broke even. what happens to all the money between 440 and 700 million??? logically it makes no sense. every dollar you make after you break even is profit.
      just more attempts to try to lessen how poorly the film did and they scale of the money lost by disney/marvel 152.44.162.18 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Box Office gross is not how much the film studio takes, it's the takings at the cinema, and the cinemas have to take a share otherwise they'd go bust showing films. I think the film studio takes 40-60% of the gross (the precise figures may vary depending on the country, or the cinema chain, or the studio), so if a film grossed 200 million, the film studio may only take ~100 million. Break-even point is just a guesstimate, only a studio itself knows how much it needs to make money. Hzh (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    o I am very aware of that. you seem to miss the point that calling the breakeven point 440 and the point to be profitable 700 completely wrong. logically it makes no sense to declare 440 breakeven and then over 700 profitable.
    that is just wildly wrong. it does not make any sense. what happens to the 260 million made between 440 and 700..LOL
    putting that in the article is just misleading, inaccurate, and confusing for anyone who does not understand what it takes for a film to make money for the studio 152.44.162.18 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This site explains it - [6]. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hzh is suggesting that the 440 figure and the 700 are likely the same figure, but just presented as different metrics (i.e. distributor and exhibitor gross—see
    gross rental for more info). I note that the $440 million represents a 63% share of $700 million, so in line with that interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Distributor fee increases as revenue increases, but other costs also increase when a film is successful, so the breakeven point is not static, but rises with increasing revenue, only when it reaches a certain value (700 million in this example) when the studio will make a profit. Frankly though, no one really knows the real situation for any specific film except the studios themselves, and they may not want to tell the whole story to the public. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the site explains nothing. no those figures are not the same
    what obviously happened is that someone took the net after tax credit budget of 219.8 and just doubled it to get a breakeven point which is the 50% of box office = studio revenue for a break even point solely for the stated after tax credit production budget.
    the 700 million is what would actually be required to make a profit because the actual cost of the film is about 350, reshoots, delays, 100 mill in marketing, etc etc
    so the 440 million breakeven is a wildly inaccurate number. further made ridiculous by the basic logic that you cannot claim the breakeven point is 260 million less than the profit point.
    what was written makes no sense.
    again, you cannot claim a breakeven point of X and a profit after Y without those being the same figure. by definition any amount of money after breaking even is profit 152.44.162.18 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link actually explains that the breakeven point is different from the rolling breakeven point used to calculate net profit. But that's only partly relevant in this instance, because I read the sources quoted, and it looks like they were actually using different calculation, hence different numbers. Whoever that summarised it just did it badly and made a mistake. One source says that it must make a minimum of $439.6 million based on the 219.8 million production cost figure (so that doesn't include marketing cost), while the other uses 275 million production cost figure to get the ~2.5X figure often used to calculate the point where a film can make a profit. The two numbers are about different things, and someone got confused. Hzh (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Whether the break-even point is $300 million, $439 million, etc., that means at a minimum, this film needed to gross nearly $600 million at the box office and possibly as much as $750+ million (not counting tax credits the film's production costs may receive later) in order to recoup the investment. Remember, the studio typically only receives 45-55% of the gross depending on territory and contractual agreements in place. That means the box office failing of this film will be massive, despite the fact we are waiting for an official accounting. I don't think a "mixed" approach where one term is used in the lead and another in the body solves the problem. Either call it a bomb based on the sources we have now, or don't mention the term anywhere in the article until you have the sources required. Unlike other films that have teetered on the edge in recent memory, this one isn't coming close. It massively bombed, but I do understand the desire to wait for proper sourcing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't been following this, so I'm not aware of the full context, but I will say that it's a pretty straightforward question. If a large number of sources describe the film as a "box-office bomb", then we can call a spade a spade and describe the film as a "box-office bomb" (without any additional words like "reported" or "described as" per
      WP:EXCEPTIONAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @
      WP:HEADLINEs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Then Option C, but replace "industry focused outlets" with "publications". I also don't know how I feel about "box-office disappointment", which is basically a synonym/euphenism of "box-office bomb", so perhaps something more neutral or factual like "underperformed/underwhelmed at the box office". InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      After reconsidering some parts of this through all of it, simply saying the film "underperformed at the box office" may suffice, rather than trying to put a label on it which is not necessary in the lead. I only restored the "box-office disappointment" wording because that's what we use at the Quantumania article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      except that is a lie. really unsure why you keep repeating that lie
      the sources do state it is a bomb, in the text of the article not just in the headline.
      we had this exact same exchange 2 days ago. where you decided to pivot to a different goalpost move to keep protecting this film.
      I find it confusing that
      a. you all are trying so very hard to not call a spade a spade
      b. posting easily disproved lies in order to facilitate point a.
      seriously, try harder
      by consensus means 2-3 guys who really dont want this movie to look bad are going in circles desperately trying to find some wiki rule to stop reality from being shown. comical
      for reference:
      Everyone who's taking issue with the page not stating "box office bomb" has, surprisingly, not produced a single, reliable source that categorically describes the film as such while also not failing WP:HEADLINE. See the subsection below on an attempt to do so and what the results yielded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      https://collider.com/the-marvels-box-office-bomb/
      In body of article calls the film a box office bomb. Not just the headline. Therefore does not fail the headline test
      I look forward to whatever excuses come now to claim that doesn't count.
      to re-iterate, stop lying about it being because of the headline rule. that is not true 152.44.162.18 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      These accusations of lying are getting increasingly ridiculous, and for that matter aren't convincing anyone here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If the same person didnt keep posting a demonstrably false [lie] statement they wouldn't be accused of it.
      And it's really not an accusation as much as an observation.
      An article (4 of the linked articles actually do this) was posted with bomb in the text not just headline. And the same guy has then made multiple posts where he says that no source passes the headline test.
      It's seriously odd to keep posting something that's so easy to prove false 2600:1010:B146:9576:8DD2:799C:13C2:B6E6 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, there are sources that use "box-office bomb" in the body. Accordingly, we will be adding a line in the body (not in the lead, to avoid giving
      WP:VNT. If you cry foul, then you're just misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and the one who is trying to push a political agenda. If you do not have anything more constructive to say other than make baseless and incivil accusations, then I would politely ask you to vent your anger elsewhere — Twitter/X is right around the corner. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      so there are multiple sources.
      So your argument is the quality. Who is the arbiter of what meets the subjective quality test 2600:1010:B146:9576:8DD2:799C:13C2:B6E6 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This subsection is literally about assessing the quality of the sources. If you pay attention, you'll notice it's a collaborative effort. DonQuixote (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No this subsection is about working together to come up with a plausible excuse to not correctly call it a bomb per the multiple sources that state that fact.
      It's not subtle
      Its such an odd hill to die on 2600:1010:B146:9576:8DD2:799C:13C2:B6E6 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're obsessing about a mediocre film that most people don't care about. About that hill...pot, kettle, black. DonQuixote (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point it’s probably best to ignore this IP. Let them keep posting their nonsense. It’s good diffs to bring up if needed for a report. :) Mike Allen 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pointless argument, that the film bombed is not an exceptional claim, nor is it a contentious one, since no one else, apart from a few editors here, would argue that it is not a bomb. "Bomb" is just another word for failure, disaster, flop, or any number of words that express the same idea of a film doing badly without using the word "bomb", which made argument about headlines silly since the body of the text can say the same thing without using the word bomb. For example you can find examples of the film being described as a failure in many sources, [7][8] even by Stephen King [9]. I think you could say that guidelines are being misused here. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the technicality defense. A few editors here are determined to not call it a bomb, regardless of the vast sources that call it a bomb, failure, disaster, flip etc
    They will keep looking for some wiki rule or standard, constantly moving the goal posts that it hasn't "reached" to call it a bomb
    No matter what the sources say, what the reality is. They will find some reason to justify what they personally want to say.
    Flies in the face of wiki being "objective " and reporting what the sources state 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These hostile accusations of bias are not helping the discussion here, and we've already heard your point several times. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please kind sir stop inserting your personal bias into the article
    And Please o Please stop repeating the same lie that the headline rule applies when it's been pointed out repeatedly that multiple articles use on the text of article
    Better? 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are turning into personal attacks, all for a film I haven't seen. For that matter, Options C and D both mention sites calling it a bomb, so I'm not sure what your problem still is. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so now it's a personal attack to ask you to stop repeating a repeatedly disproven "false" claim about the headline rule.
    Exactly how many times does that need to be pointed out before you all stop claiming headline applies.
    Not really sure what "polite" way you want that said.
    I wouldn't post about it over and over if you all didn't keep bringing it up. Lol 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP I highly suggest you
    drop the stick. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So i have to make a username to point out what the sources say. Guess I'll have to make one 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that. I suggest you drop the stick and calm down. IF you continue with these personal attacks there's a good chance you will be blocked. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attacks.
    Every time someone repeats the headline defense. After it's been proven false many times.
    I'm going to point out that's a false statement.
    If you all are tired of being called out. Stop claiming headline applies when it clearly doesn't. Not difficult
    I'm just as tired of pointing it out as you 2600:1010:B1AA:AE39:CC77:94E1:31AA:960A (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to argue with you on this. I'm only stating what I've been seeing is going on. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for @
    WP:HEADLINE, and the argument that "well it's still saying that it's a bomb despite not using that word in the text" flies in the face of said rule. A consensus is already forming around either Options C or D, both of which mention the film being described as a bomb. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For the 4th time. 4 of the sources have bomb in the text of the article.
    So trying to using the headline defense does not work
    Try again 2601:204:E384:44D0:ECF1:4C92:5E3F:D37A (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone used words like "contentious" or cite
    WP:EXCEPTIONAL in this discussion, they are arguing that many think that it did not bomb, and that is a false claim. If you don't deny that the film was a failure, then you also agree that it bombed. Bomb is just an informal way of saying failure as defined in dictionary [10]. In this case "bomb" is a succinct way of saying what's given in the body of the source. Even the BBC, not really known for sensationalist headlines used "bombs" in its headline [11]. Many other publications used different words that express the same idea but don't repeat that word in the body of the text, e.g. LA Times says "flop" [12], as did Fortune,[13], the Independent [14], EW,[15] Forbes [16] and Variety [17], but they also use the word "flop" in the text. Does it mean that we should use the word "flop" instead in the lede? No, it's too informal, the same reason why I argued against the word "bomb" - it is too informal for use in an encyclopedia and alternative words are preferable, although it is fine when used in the body of the text as a quote. Hzh (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "If you don't deny that the film was a failure, then you also agree that it bombed."
    This is a type of informal fallacy that assumes that terms like "disappointment", "failure", "flop", and "bomb" are all synonymous in the context of box office performance. That is not necessarily the case. A film that earns less than expected or barely breaks even might be labeled a disappointment or possibly even a failure, while terms like "flop" and "bomb" may be used to label a higher degree of failure. It's also worth mentioning that box-office bomb is a widely-used industry term with its own article on Wikipedia, so it's inclusion within a film article is very different than using the word "bomb" informally in other contexts. It's also incorrect to assume that opponents of "box-office bomb" don't believe the film bombed. Some may want to wait for better sourcing (in-depth financial analysis or high-quality sources that use the actual label) before moving forward with inclusion, and wanting to wait may have NOTHING to do with personal beliefs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some may want to wait for better sourcing (in-depth financial analysis or high-quality sources that use the actual label) before moving forward with inclusion, and wanting to wait may have NOTHING to do with personal beliefs. This. Perfect way to summarize the intent of how some in this discussion (myself included) are trying to approach all this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this sentiment. Most of us don't have any agenda here and just want the upmost high-quality material from factual sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is bizarre to called it informal fallacy when you agree that "flop" and "bomb" mean the same thing, given that I provided multiple examples of articles that called it a "flop". How many sources do you need before you accept that it is the consensus opinion of the media that the film is a bomb/flop/disaaster/whatever? The discussion has gone into a weird territory when wiki editors find ways to try to deny the consensus opinion of the media. Hzh (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the quoted text I provided, the terms being used interchangeably were "failure" and "bomb", but these terms can sometimes be used to describe varying degrees of underperformance, especially in regard to film. The sources you introduced above regarding "flop" should indeed be taken into consideration, as "flop" is more closely associated with "bomb", but keep in mind that these weren't provided earlier during source analysis. So the !votes so far may not have taken these sources into account.
    Also as a disclaimer, I haven't weighed in with a choice; I don't have a horse in this race. I actually happen to believe the film will be remembered historically as a massive bomb, and it's only a matter of time before the consensus in mainstream sources confirms it. Perhaps the additional sources you've introduced get the debate closer to the inevitable. GoneIn60 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option D. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sariel Xilo, Trailblazer101, Jolly1253, Hzh, and InfiniteNexus: because you !voted above, I wanted to let you know I've added a fourth "D" option above, reflecting some of the comments that were had in the responses about the thoughts on Option C (as you all voted). And this is a courtesy ping to @Erik, Betty Logan, GoneIn60, Harryhenry1, and DonQuixote: to this change as you have all commented above, though have not given !votes, so you are aware of its inclusion now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option D – Option D minimises the
      WP:JARGON and rhetoric and does the best job of just stating the facts. I am generally not a fan of labeling something a "bomb" until the losses are known (the term is often thrown around too liberally by the media, and I am old enough to remember Titanic being branded a bomb after it posted a low opening) but it's difficult to foresee any kind of scenario where this movie does not lose a load of money. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • With the addition of Option D, that will have to be my !vote as it covers all bases with what sources we are given and is the more accurate terminology to address this film's situation. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option D for me has the best phrasing so I'll go with that one based on the options. -- ZooBlazer 05:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option D is best. I'm not keen on the wording around break-even point and profitability: falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable - it's confusing to mention both figures which logically should be the same, and the figures are highly speculative anyway, as suggested by our resort to "reported(ly)", which is in
      WP:WEASEL territory. Invoking financial terminology ("break-even", "profitable") is misleading when we know so little about the actual finances of the production, and the figures we have are guesses and rules of thumb from industry commentators. Never mind that the studios invoke dark magic even when they're doing their own accounting. It's almost impossible for outsiders to know if a film project was truly profitable. If we're going to include one figure, the $700m looks the least worst, as it plausibly includes marketing and distribution costs. This point is probably separate to the decision on if/where to use the term "bomb", so perhaps one to revisit once the main issue of this conversation is resolved. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    With the article's protection having lifted, I have implemented the wording of option D into the article, as the consensus was ultimately clear in favor of that proposed phrasing.     Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so when the consensus is ignore what multiple reliable sources state, that is what is put in the article regardless of reality?
    again exactly what bar has to be reach to put what all those sources have reported, that it was a box office bomb 152.44.162.18 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is saying that this is what the reliable sources are saying. It seems you're the only one who thinks differently. If you read each comment above carefully, you'll ascertain what some of the minimal requirements are. DonQuixote (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4 reliable sources state it was a box office bomb. On top of the dozens of sources calling it a bomb in the headline.
    These were of course ignored in favor of not stating the obvious. Because reasons
    The consensus is that regardless of what the sources state at no point will it be called a bomb. 2601:204:E384:44D0:1AEC:1737:41D:2E3 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option D already mentions that sources call it a bomb, it's right there in the article. What more do you want? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DONTFEED and just move on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fully protected

    I've now fully protected the article for 2 weeks due to the constant edit warring over the issue. Let me know if y'all manage to reach a consensus before the 2 weeks has elapsed so I may unprotect early. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you so eager to protect this film? Wikipedia is not grounded in reality when it comes to The Marvels. Wake up.
    107.19.11.186 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are working towards a consensus above. If you have nothing productive to add then just stop spamming the The Marvel's talk page. If you hate Wikipedia, then don't open the site. The admin fully protected the ARTICLE (not the FILM) because of an ongoing content dispute. Mike Allen 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming bad faith way more than you need to, as the discussion's being worked out in a fair way with multiple sources. I don't see any of this "protecting the film" problem that the site needs to "wake up" from, since no one's denying that it lost money. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:SEMI) for a couple of months until interest dies down given the tenor of the above discussion. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Thanks for the ping, Sariel Xilo. While I could likely close the discussion with a consensus towards one of the options, I think it'd be best if I remained uninvolved here where content is concerned. I'd also give it a couple more days before closing the discussion, since a new option was recently added. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense! Just added the discussion to the closure requests so an uninvolved editor sees it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closure request was declined: "It looks like there was almost unanimous consensus for option D and the change has been implemented. The only negative feedback has been from the IP editor who was
    MOS:ACCLAIM point". I'll add the archive discussion template around the above discussion since option D was implemented so new proposed changes should be a new discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @Isabelle Belato: Since you removed the full protection and we implemented the agreed upon wording, we have had five edits (here, here, here, here, and here) trying to add the "bomb" wording back. These were made by four editors in total, three of which were not extended confirmed editors. Is there any benefit to increasing the page protection from semi to extended confirmed? I'm asking here and not at RPP since you were involved with the page protection for this issue specifically. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Favre1fan93: Yeah, I've been watching the page and noticed as much. I'd rather not have to ECP a page for such a minor issue, but I'm going to upgrade the protection for a month and hopefully people will have stopped caring so much about this movie by then. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I agree with the thought process and not wanting to go to ECP for this, but I hope as you it may help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isabelle Belato: I unfortunately think it is time for some indefinite protection of the page (be it semi or ECP), given we are still experiencing issues with the lead wording around the box office performance. Wanted to ping you first before bringing up an RPP given you were involved with all this previously. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:RFPP, as I don't have the admin tools at the moment. I think a year long semi-protection would be fine. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Comments regarding closed discussion Skimming through these arguments was hands down the most entertaining thing I did all day. I'm not going to accuse anyone of bias, but I do find it kind of interesting that the film "underperformed" so massively yet doesn't warrant the label "bomb." I can honestly see where the accusations of bias come from, to the extent that people are trying to "protect this film" i.e. protect how it's perceived. You can argue that Wikipedia doesn't have a horse in that race, but I disagree. I've been skimming through Wikipedia articles about things that interest me for the entirety of my conscious life, and I can't tell you how many times I was dissuaded from watching a movie or TV show because its Wikipedia page mentioned "box office bomb" or some other unflattering language in its head section. I think Wikipedia certainly has the potential for influencing, if not outright effecting, people's opinion(s) on relevant topics and I think people underestimate Wikipedia's impact on the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better word) in this regard. Jumping through hoops to not call a box office bomb what it is strikes me as very odd. No one kicks up a fuss over calling DC movies bombs. I honestly do see a correlation between this film bombing/failing/whatever in a way that is more noteworthy than other "box office bombs" and a supposed concerted effort to not portray or describe the film that way. $205 mil WW on a $275 budget is laughably bad. Sure, it's not the end of the world if you don't call it a bomb. It's not going to change how anyone gets out of bed the next morning, but there's no reason to be afraid to call balls and strikes.

    This movie bombed. Badly. Shamus248 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing rants mixed with subtle personal attacks in the form of
    WP:TALK#POSITIVE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    "The Biggest Hollywood Winners and Losers of 2023: From Margot Robbie to Marvel". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on January 4, 2024. Retrieved January 4, 2024. after the film became the biggest bomb in MCU history
    "Disney Gives Up on The Marvels". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on January 8, 2024. Retrieved January 1, 2024. Marvel Studios is not reacting well, at all, to having its first real box office bomb in 15 years. [...] One bomb in 30 or so is, obviously, pretty damned incredible, but you wouldn't know it from how Marvel and Disney are handling it.
    from the original on December 8, 2023. Retrieved January 1, 2024. Capping off its opening weekend at $47 million domestically and $110.3 million total, The Marvels becomes the MCU's lowest-earning superhero feature and Marvel's first box office bomb
    its odd to have so much sourced detail and then declare the sources do not exist Holydiver82 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s great that you are so passionate about improving the article, and are willing to investigate what sources say. These are good qualities in a Wikipedia editor. Can I suggest that you spend some time learning about why we have guidelines like
    WP:DISRUPTIVE
    ).
    But you come across as combative in your comments above, which puts you on a path to getting banned. Then you definitely won’t get the article changed.
    Personally, I think it is quite likely that posterity will judge this film to be a bomb, and it is only a matter of time before more high quality reliable sources start to describe it so. So maybe just wait a bit. Come back when new sources crop up, and we can talk calmly about their merits (rather than about each other). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks? i understand why MOS acclaimed exists. i highly doubt the consensus will change. i guess when this gets added to the top of the 100 biggest bombs page it will be harder and harder to not call it a bomb? but the consensus was already, ignore the sources that call it a bomb in the article, rely on the fact most articles only call it a bomb in the headline and then use synonyms like flop in the article and then say well see they technically did not call it a bomb they called it a flop/disaster/etc
    It comes off as combative because people keep making demonstrably false statements, and generally people dislike when others point out what they said is false. The problem is if enough people desire to not call it a bomb you can argue the technicalities of wiki rules until you can get a consensus to ignore reality.
    For example, MOS acclaimed states "multiple reliable sources", well how many sources is enough to be multiple? who decides when enough is enough? What if the consensus is always whatever you have is not enough? Holydiver82 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An author/journalist/influencer calling a film a bomb without covering the numbers in detail is not generally good enough. Such articles are making the same logical guess that you and others here have made. While it may be a very good guess that has a very high chance to turn out true, an encyclopedia doesn't suffer by playing the waiting game and preferring verification in high-quality sources.
    The article already says "the film underperformed", only made "$206 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million", and that "some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise". All three of these elements combined communicate to readers that the film failed pretty badly. Adding the phrase "bomb" to the
    lead section will not significantly alter this viewpoint, and the possibility of adding the label in the future is still on the table. Furthermore, those 4 sources (and others brought up later on) came very late in the discussion and not in time to really impact the survey of opinion. They should be evaluated, along with any new sources that crop up, in a future discussion. Let's wait a bit and exercise some patience. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    those 4 sources were posted originally under a bolded section on Jan 1st. the options a-d section and all the discussion and voting and re voting all happened after those sources were posted. the final decision was on Jan 12th, almost 2 weeks after the sources calling it a bomb were posted in the talk. every single person who commented on the wording was doing so in reply to that original post with those sources, and multiple people pointed those sources out.
    either they did not read the sources or ignored them.
    my problem is not so much that it is not be labeled a bomb when it should be, its the dishonestly related to the reasoning.
    it is an endless number of excuses that take almost no effort to check, and show are not true Holydiver82 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking to a varied group of editors here with different backgrounds and views who came to the consensus collectively, how can you claim we're all being dishonest? Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I thought they were part of the sources provided by Hzh on January 9. Since they were in the "Source analysis" section, they were already vetted and taken into consideration in the consensus above. As Mike suggests below, respect the current consensus and give it a few months (or however long it takes) to collect the necessary sourcing needed to change that consensus. I suggest reviewing the comments closely to understand what it will take. The article will not suffer in the short term. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "who decides when enough is enough?" The Wikipedia community--which has already decided that Wikipedia is not ready to add "box office bomb" to this article. At this point you are beating a dead horse. Come back in a few months. Mike Allen 21:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what is so comical is that wiki uses the term box office bomb extremely often. if you look at recent films, look at articles on films. so many films are labeled as bombs. and the real funny part is the majority of the time this is done with little to no sources and where very limited sources listed at no point use the word bomb.
    so its, lets say interesting, that this film which actually has multiple reliable sources listed in the article that call it a bomb, in the body of the article, and editors refuse to call it a bomb.
    this article/talk page is a case study in wiki bias Holydiver82 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a massive admirer of The Marvels star Brie Larson and have even helped take her article to FA-status. I genuinely would have loved for this film to be a success or even to have "underperformed". But that's not what happened. I have to say that not calling this a "bomb" is a travesty, and precisely why so many readers have lost their faith in Wiki presenting facts without bias. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article already gets the film's bad performance across, and for that matter isn't coming from any nefarious bias. As others have said, calling it a bomb later isn't off the table. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of trying to convince everyone that it's a bomb, it would be more productive to
    due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    multiple times the editors who formed the "consensus" claimed that no reliable sources called it a bomb per wiki guides.
    when it was pointed out that in fact there were multiple sources that conformed to the MOS acclaimed regarding calling this a box office bomb, at no point did any of them change their opinion or agree to even consider those sources and consider changing the wording of the article.
    the idea that at this point there is "not enough sources" but in time there will be and they will all agree to the change is just laughable.
    i will ask again, exactly how many sources are needed. because the goalposts keep moving lets state exactly what bar needs to be reached to call it a bomb Holydiver82 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If BBC World News and Time Magazine calls it a bomb, then it's probably sufficient. If you have to actively search for the minimum number of sources then it's probably not sufficient. Seriously, most people don't care. Unless The Simpsons or the Oscars start making jokes about it (like Waterworld or Cats), it's probably not worth mentioning. DonQuixote (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67401772
    i know, "headline" rule
    still funny Holydiver82 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear that you're not engaging with what editors have actually written as the #Source analysis section (plus further discussion on sources) makes it clear what editors are looking for in sources. It's not about meeting some arbitrary threshold of X number of sources; editors are asked to assess the quality of the source which ranges from the type of source (ie. New York Times vs Polygon) to what extent the subject is covered (ie. is this the focus or is this a passing mention). In this case, we have James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter in a 2023 industry roundup refer to the film as a bomb & two pop culture focused sites (Gizmodo & Collider). Higher quality sources (such as the NYT, BBC, Variety, etc) have not used the term outside of headlines. So the consensus is fairly reasonable - within the body of the article, it states " Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise". And the consensus is open to revisiting the topic when there are new sources.
    If you're
    stop responding to comments that are just disruptive editing at this point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Bomb" has become a loaded term per
    MOS:ACCLAIMED and the perception that comes with it is why, for this article, the consensus found it best to convey the film's poor performance through more factual wording such as "underperformed". We're not denying it didn't perform well, and "bomb" is not a term we have to use to covey this. Personal preference aside, no new reliable sources presently exist for that to be included. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Indiana Jones Dial of Destiny is considered a bomb (the word is mentioned in its lead section) and is projected to have lost $100 mil even though it at the very least earned back its budget. Marvels didn't even make back its production budget, so how does is it not also labeled a bomb? I'd say it projections of $100 mil lost are very reasonable, if not outright guaranteed, for Marvels Shamus248 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such "What about X film?" arguments have already been addressed before, and the current consensus (from my understanding) is to wait for better sources to come along before relitigating this discussion. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Concensus" trumps reality in this article. Based on the most current figures Disney will get about 100 mill in revenue on a film they spent 270 to make and at least 100 mill in marketing, delays, reshoots, etc. conservatively this film will be 200 million loss at the box office. But if no one reports it you can declare it doesn't exist Holydiver82 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...yes, we can't just speculate and estimate like that without a source backing it up. We're not denying reality, the article already says the film underperformed. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had sources would you change your mind? Holydiver82 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not quickly forget
    WP:CCC). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Reference for future discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    https://collider.com/madame-web-box-office-bomb-sony-plans/, just leaving this here as another reliable source calling the marvels a bomb. so i do not have to search for it later. will add to the list of sources that meet MOS Acclaimed/WP Headline as they come up. "while the MCU has been constantly losing its footing, unleashing its first true modern bomb, The Marvels last year. Holydiver82 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Ref ideas}} template at the top of the article, rather than making additional comments here. Just for future reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not sure what makes Collider a reliable source for this type of content. Mike Allen 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon close inspection, this article only uses one instance of "bomb" in the body referring to The Marvels which links to their prior article that was a HEADLINE issue. It's not enough to support this claim. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s an issue that the article only used the word bomb once, and the prior article having a HEADLINE issue doesn’t negate the in-body reference in this article. Is Collider a reliable source? I don’t know, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Collider seems to say yes.
    I wouldn’t recommend using the word bomb in wikivoice in the lead just on the basis of this article, but I would put this article on the “pro-bomb” evidence pile. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    whether or not someone personally likes the use of the word "bomb:, this article meets every rule/guide/regulation that has been thrown out so far. super humorous I was just leaving this as a note to myself for later and its already got a bunch of posts arguing about it Holydiver82 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wikipedia Holydiver82 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion topic is closed and these comments have been collapsed. You can always add links to your personal talk page until you plan to address them here in a new thread, or you can drop URLs on another personal subpage such as a sandbox. To learn more about your personal userspace, see

    WP:USER. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Box Office Mojo Source discrepancy

    The box office totals in the article don't match the source (Box Office Mojo). Is there a good reason for this, or perhaps has BOM updated totals from initial estimates, but the article hasn't been correspondingly updated?

    Article says:

    Box office $206.1 million

    The Marvels grossed $84.5 million in the United States and Canada, and $121.5 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $206 million.

    Whereas the source says:

    All Releases DOMESTIC (43.3%) $84,500,223 INTERNATIONAL (56.7%) $110,663,691 WORLDWIDE $195,163,914

    Am I missing something? Dcfcowper (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that this figure was given by BOM which then retracted it, likely as an overage of the actual gross, which tends to happen with these sites. Now, The Numbers actually lists a higher gross than what BOM does, so I will implement that as the correct figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it appears BOM had an error and it has now gone back to listing the 206 figure. I have restored it as such. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of films were affected by this "error", including Man of Steel. Some algorithm or formula was probably having issues and has since been fixed. Not sure if it's been fixed across the board, but I also don't think this is the first time that's happened. Perhaps moving forward we should capture an archived version of the page and include it in the citation. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Thanks for letting us know. I know there is an archive option for the cite BOM temp, though I haven't seen it used as frequently as it should across these film articles. This might be enough incentive to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we usually avoid archives for box office and other things that are constantly changing, but we should be fine to add an archive once the theatrical run is done. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. In this situation, the odd unexpected financial updates occurred on older films as well (long after their theatrical run had ended), and each of those would have benefited from an archived citation. But generally you are spot on. Archived snapshots are a waste of time during a film's theatrical run. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Box Office Disaster"

    Madame Web ends its opening by stating it is a "box-office disaster" because it's only just surpassed its budget.

    The Marvels failed to surpass its budget and is the lowest performing MCU movie. Surely given the financial definition of "box office disaster" that Wikipedia uses for Madame Web, that would be applicable here.

    Why isn't The Marvels also labelled as a Box Office Disaster considering it lost the studio money, failed to break-even and did not even surpass its initial budget? 2A00:23C7:812:3A01:307E:D00:36D1:224C (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been removed. The unsourced claim was added in this edit, and it shouldn't have been without citing reliable sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs don't make a right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unconstructive, disruptive comments and accusations of other editors' intents and complains against the consensus. Ranting editor does not seem to be here to
    WP:TALK#POSITIVE. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    You could either read pages and pages of talk pages or. Tl dr, a group of editors decided to put the most sugar coated euphemism possible because they didn't want it called a bomb. For some reason this specific film has absolutely massive amount of discussion about how to phrase that i have not seen in any other film page ever. Read the talk page it's quite amusing Holydiver82 (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors wanted to wait for more academic reliable sources to discuss and analyze the box office as a whole, rather than using the bare minimum of reliable sources available from only the first few months of its theatrical run. Your comments and assumptions are not really constructive, let alone helpful, to this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think academic sources are needed but I do think waiting is still the right answer. There’s nothing misleading or incorrect about the current wording. The sources from around the release date of a movie tend to run hot. We may get a different characterisation of this movie once we get sources written by cooler heads. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the film has been out of the cinema for months and is already on disney+, exactly how much longer do we need to wait? how many more articles do you think will be written about a film that old? those sources are now writing about madame web, or dune. we have multiple reliable sources commenting on the marvels being a bomb after it was no longer in cinema. exactly what do you think is going to be written or going to change at this point? for months the default response has been "you just need to wait longer", exactly how much waiting is needed? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Until some sources come up that warrant changing the article. The term "bomb" is ultimately a kind of
    value judgement
    . It's informal, fuzzy, and IMHO not very encyclopedic. The only reason we would normally entertain it is if we see a great deal of weight in the sources pointing towards labelling it this way.
    Articles about movies written around the time of release suffer from hype/hate bias, and particularly this one. The passage of time may serve to turn the heat down and allow a more objective retrospective characterisation of the film. We haven't even had final financials, so I'd expect that to eventually trigger some articles. At the moment, the movie is still part of a weird little culture war branch, with anti-fans on one side ("this movie must be called a bomb at all costs, because that proves Disney's strategy leads to failure, which proves that their progressive politics leads to failure, which proves Communism doesn't work, so you have to agree with me!") and wagon-circlers on the other ("this movie must not be called a bomb at all costs, because that cedes ground to the haters, which legitimises their grievances, which are adjacent to sexism, which is adjacent to traditional values, which is adjacent to authoritarianism, which is adjacent to fascism, which is adjacent to Nazism, and we all hate Nazis so you have to agree with me!"). You decide if it's worth your time being on one side of this polarization trap, or whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud you for finally speaking the truth of the entire debate. none of this is about how many reliable sources are provided, and MOS acclaimed or WP Headline or NORUSH. this film is seen a singular statement on the "culture war". the entire debate has nothing to do with any wikipedia guidelines or standards on sources. it is entirely about the culture war and as you said "this movie must not be called a bomb at all costs, because that cedes ground to the haters, which legitimises their grievances". so a consensus was made to not call it a bomb for that singular reason. my problem with that is it flies in the face of reality, and i dislike the attempt to use wiki guidelines as cover for personal bias regarding the "culture war" Holydiver82 (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one on here is knowingly giving into a nonsensical "culture war" and, from what I can tell in the discussion, most of the editors just want more accurate resources to analyze the box office that have had enough time to shift away from all of this bullshit, and are not engaging in any way of personal biases as you seem to be assuming here. The policies and guidelines are in place specifically so we have a groundwork to go off of when such material gets heated or disputed, not to "attempt to use wiki guidelines as cover for personal bias regarding the "culture war"" as you have falsely accused without evidence. Making such claims is not helping the constructive or
    WP:CIVIL nature of the discussion process, and you have already been warned at your talk multiple times about making such assumptions of other editors on this talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You have missed the point entirely. My extreme examples were supposed to be lampoons of the noise going on around this film, not a description of Wikipedia editors. Here we are striving to rise above this nonsense, not participate in it. Both of these “sides” are absurd in equal and opposite ways. If you can only see fault in one, you might be on the other. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the discussion was after it was out of the cinema, and those multiple reliable sources were either ignored or dismissed, as can be seen in this talk page. multiple times. when over and over those multiple reliable sources were brought at no point did anyone advocating for not calling it a bomb even acknowledge the sources or agree to even discuss calling it a bomb. trying to figure out, is 4 enough? because you told me that 4 reliable sources were needed per MOS Acclaimed, and the marvels has more than that amount. is that now not good enough? the movie has been out of the cinema for months and is already on disney+, exactly how much longer do we need to wait? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to rehash statements which have already been said or further entertain this discussion. The ACCLAIMED MOS and HEADLINES policy has already been explained to you and the consensus has already been established and implemented. If you want to be constructive and help, then please find updated reliable sources that attribute to it being a bomb, rather than criticizing other editors and making assumptions, which do not appear to be
    WP:CIVIL manner. If not, then you don't have to respond, and neither do we. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have read those guides multiple times, while purposely vague they are quite easy to understand. the problem of course is that the consensus on this page completely ignores those guides. the reason i have to keep asking for explanation is that editors, such as yourself keep moving the goalposts on those guides. it says multiple, so of course there had to be a 'discussion' on what exactly the word multiple means. you said it means 4 or more, then the next day on this talk page you seemed to imply that "minimum" of 4 was not enough. if the goalposts were not moved constantly i would have significantly less questions about said guidelines. a small level of consistency in the application of MOS Acclaimed would prove to be quite helpful Holydiver82 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have questions about the MOS, then take it to that talk page, not here. I have said 4 is a good rule of thumb that has been used in practice across these articles. The consensus specifically highlighted ACCLAIMED and HEADLINES as to which sources to use and which ones did not fall in line with those were removed, so the notion that "consensus on this page completely ignores those guides" is utterly false. The bomb information is in the article in the box office section and is attributed to three reliable sources that fall within those guidelines, as the others were deemed not to. I'm not saying 4 is a must have or the definitive minimum, though it is more preferred and a good
    WP:Build an encyclopedia (which is always changing and improving) and gather more sources to see if they would qualify. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Do we need so much pushback back against Iger's comment?

    Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects. Others felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments. Gizmodo's James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird", and he noted that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

    Can we trim it down to Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

    It removes "with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this time.

    It removes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" since this is only sourced as an opinion from James Whitbrook.

    It removes "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird"" since this reads like a teenager writing, and again is just from Whitbrook. Tikaboo (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The first bit you want to remove is very relevant, as it contradicts his point. The next bit you want to remove is a set of facts, not an opinion, which give important context to the comments. The last bit is just an opinion, but I don't think it is inappropriate to finish the paragraph with a direct response to Iger's comment. We could replace it with a different, similar opinion but I personally don't see the need for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first bit, Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. I'm not understanding the contradiction. As for the second bit, it's not a fact that she's been unfairly targeted, or even "targeted" at all. Some things happened that were commented upon, calling it an unfair targetting of the director is an opinion from Whitbrook. For the third bit, why do we need to replace it at all? Is it really necessary to have three sentences attacking Iger? Two of which are just from the rando Whitbrook. Tikaboo (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see enough justification for removing relevant commentary. Commentary and perspectives from these sites and figures such as Whitbrook help make up the backbone of sections for our readers so they are provided with detailed discussion and analysis of the cited material, rather than only just including the facts or statements from officially involved persons. Outside perspectives from commentators enhance the articles, not detract. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with adamstom97 that there's an appropriate amount of detail & industry response on Iger's comment. Whitbrook isn't some rando - he's the Deputy Editor of io9/Gizmodo so including his commentary makes sense in a Reception section. As Trailblazer101 pointed out, this type of commentary is pretty standard in such sections (see also the spectrum of views included in the critical response subsection). Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did include outside perspectives in my proposal "Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office."
    For the three things I proposed to remove, can someone explain why the first one shouldn't be removed? Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. There's no actual contradiction there. I've read the sources for this statement and it doesn't fit either so seems like a wiki editor made a mistake trying to include their responses to the oversight comment.
    For the second one "and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" We should specifically attribute this to Whitbrook's opinion if it's kept in. And I think there are other good reasons for not including it at all. His first example of Disney unfairly targeting the director is from this: https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/ but we don't know if it's from Disney, Variety only says it's from a source "familiar with the production".
    If we do include his "unfairly targeted" allegation then I don't think it's good enough to leave what those are unsaid. This is his example: "DaCosta began working on another film while “The Marvels” was still in postproduction — the filmmaker moved to London earlier this year to begin prepping for her Tessa Thompson drama “Hedda.” (A representative for DaCosta declined to comment.) “If you’re directing a $250 million movie, it’s kind of weird for the director to leave with a few months to go,” says a source familiar with the production." To be honest I'm surprised this isn't in the article anyway.
    The other example is the director missing the premiere for her birthday https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-marvels-director-nia-dacosta-missed-cast-crew-screening-1235648288/ which is sourced to "according to miffed Marvel staffers grumbling at the Nov. 8 screening," which again is a stretch to attribute it to Disney, given their description as "Marvel staffers". Could be any low level person.
    The third one: "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird" well again, other than sounding like high schooler, it's just unnecessary, and as we've seen his evidence for Disney doing these public critiques is just guesses. Tikaboo (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Marvels&oldid=1217264827"