User talk:BornonJune8/Archive6

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

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of box office bombs (2010s), you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Would you prefer this list to be left unfinished just so you can personally appease one particular Wikipedia editor?"--I'm not trying to appease anyone, and "unfinished"--I still doubt the validity of this in the first place, given the original research. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, you're taking what I said completely out of context and then make it essentially about yourself (without any other justification for why you feel they don't belong there besides what somebody use on Wikipedia may have suggested to you) when you complain about how you can't read the article on your cell phone or on your personal computer because you may or may not have a slower connection then mine. BornonJune8 06:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:: My primary sources: TVTropes, Bomb Report, Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops. And since you brought up the film 3 Generations...

BornonJune8 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry not sorry, but if anyone is making this about themselves it's you, and I note that other editors on those article talk pages are being extraordinarily lenient with you, even though you keep piling up material after a half dozen editors are objecting. I do not believe those sites you link are reliable sources, and that which you cite doesn't even mention "bomb", whatever "bomb" even means--I have no doubt there is no one single definition of the term. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: If these aren't more "decidedly reliable sources" than I don't know what are! And if I need to defend and explain myself, of course, in a round about way, it's going to be a case of making it about myself. And please spare me the sarcasm and amble threats. The Biggest Box-Office Bombs of 2010, 10 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2010 (So Far) - Parade, 15 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2011: THR Year In Review, 2011 By The Numbers: The Year In Box-Office Flops, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2012 - Business Insider, The 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs of 2012 - Pajiba, The Biggest Box Office Flops Of 2012 - Forbes, Hollywood's Biggest Box Office Bombs of 2013 – Variety, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2013, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2014 - Business Insider, 19 Biggest Box-Office Bombs and Bummers in 2014: From ‘The Giver’ to ‘Winter’s Tale’ (Photos), Biggest Box Office Flops of 2015 | EW.com, biggest box office bombs - Telegraph, 2016's Biggest Box Office Bombs | Hollywood Reporter, 20 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2016 - IGN,The 10 biggest box-office bombs of 2017 so far, 10 box-office bombs from 2017 | Fox News BornonJune8 05:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think you really understand what
WP:RS is all about. Entertainment Weekly? Fox? "Pajiba"? And how do you get from ten or twenty supposed flops in some article to over 600k of borrowed material? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
EW is fine for some things but not for all. As a celebrity and entertainment tabloid it's not bad, but for anything more complicated, anything that requires a longer view than what happened last night, I think we should look elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Flyer22 Reborn, I would use Entertainment Weekly if it stated a film was a box office bomb on its own, but I would be more sceptical if it appeared on a list of box office bombs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Onetwothreeip: You've mentioned that a couple times now. Curious why that is? From my perspective if it's just about movie X, great because it considered movie X, but if it's a list, also great because it's considering the topic of bombs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I also see that Betty Logan is involved in box office disputes with BornonJune8. No need to ping me to this talk page, by the way. I'll keep checking back for comments.
talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Onetwothreeip and Drmies: Granted, I wouldn't necessarily say that box office analysis is Entertainment Weekly's forte. For movies from the early 2000s or before, we probably should be wary of Box Office Mojo's budget listings - most are not based on anything resembling reality. We can check archives of Variety or the the LA Times. Also, check quarterly investor reports for write-downs and info on losses. All of the major studios are owned by publicly traded conglomerates. But I would like to think it's something you can only know for sure if you worked on the film its self or in the profession. BornonJune8 011:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bornon, what a roller coaster I went on reading the above comment. I was so with you every step of the way until the last sentence. If the reliable sources you mentioned aren't really reliable then we have no basis of criteria and thus should not have these lists at all. Since I choose to believe we do have reliable sources here we can use their findings, no
WP:EXPERT required. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Barkeep49: My point after all of the sources that I provided, it's becoming frustrating. I'm starting to not know for sure what you personally think is truly reliable source. I keep having people immediately saying that only one of the links that I provided is in their eyes, "reliable". What I'm saying is that there might as well be some sort of fault in virtually any or every source. I never exactly determined that these particular sources aren't at all reliable. BornonJUne8 12:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bornon, I'm going to assume the you is a plural given that several of us in this discussion seem to be in general agreement. If that assumption's wrong tell me and I'll respond differently. To answer your question, it's all about
WP:RS from time to time. Do you have questions about some of its content that maybe we could help talk about? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
To all, I think it's much clearer to say if we found a film on a list of box office bombs, but all the reliable profiles of that film did not mention it as a box office bomb. Being on a list of top 10 or 20 presumes that there are ten or twenty notable box office bombs from that year, when quite simply they might just want to make a list that people will read. I don't have a problem with Entertainment Weekly as a source, it's simply the lists. If a film is a box office bomb, a profile of that film would say so. BornonJune8, I really can't stress enough that amounts of money are not enough to establish a film as a box office bomb. Sources have to say they are a box office bomb, not that they lost X money. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: But the lists in general were strictly focused on movies that were regarded as "box office bombs". I don't understand entirely why you feel that a website that lists movies as "bombs" is unacceptable, but a article that focuses on a singular movie (which ironically, Bomb Report actually does) like that bombed is. Essentially, they're about the same topic when you get right down to it. And let's put it this way, if Entertainment Weekly made a list of box office bombs from any particular year, would you still consider it an unreliable source? BornonJune8 12:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Thanks. I now agree that giving extra scrutiny to lists to make sure that they are remaining reliable makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To solve the problem about sources, I propose BornonJune8 tells us what websites he wishes to use. We don't even need links, this should be as minimal as possible, and I don't expect to be going through massive amounts of data to surmise this. The only way this could be frustrating is if you keep trying to pass off the same sources which everyone else is rejecting. The second issue with sources is that they have to say the film is a box office bomb, but I'd like to get through the first issue first. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Bomb Report, Variety, LA Times, Box Office Mojo, Forbes, and Filmsite.org BornonJune8 12:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here like we're talking to someone who has a topic ban or something. That's not the case. This whole conversation shouldn't be about one person's edits, even if that one person is the efficient cause for us being here. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page(s), where reliable sources should be discussed and, more importantly, what kind of sourcing can verify what until now looks like OR and how much content is acceptable. 600k is NOT acceptable, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I accept some of those websites, I reject others, and that is best left for the article page. In fact, everyone here should really not be on this user talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies and Barkeep49: I previously suggested on the talk page for List of box office bombs (2000s) to split the article into two: The first part would be for would be for movies starting with the letter A-N (the first 13 letters in the alphabet plus the # symbol at the very tope)? The second part would naturally, focus on movies starting with the letter O-Z (the final 13 letters in the alphabet). I've come to the realization that this needs dispute resolution, not retrenchment. BornonJune8 11:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Flyer22 Reborn: On the box office
subreddit it lists the following resources:

Wiki pages
Essentials
  • Box Office Mojo - the definitive source for box office statistics, also home to good weekend box office updates.
  • Box Office Pro - best known for their long-range forecasts of domestic openings.
  • The Numbers - an alternative to Mojo with some improved comparison features.
The Trades
  • Deadline - has the most comprehensive box office analysis of all the trades.
International Box Office
Let's make this simple. Which websites do you want to use to prove a film is a box office bombs? Remember, we can't infer it from data, the sources must come to the same conclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Well, since I listed them, all of them (or at the very least the ones under Essentials and Trades)! BornonJune8 04:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does Box Office Mojo call films bombs? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Yes! BornonJune8 07:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use Google searches. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I don't think that the point! The point is that there is some concrete evidence of Box Office Mojo describing movies as bombs like Mortdecai, Gunman or Blackhat BornonJune8 08:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These sources support considering Gunman and Blackhat box office bombs, but it only predicts that for Mordecai. Forums like Reddit and Box Office Theory, even if they contain reference pages, are not reliable sources. The requirements are 1) being a reliable source, and 2) explicitly describing the film as a box office bomb. There may be more requirements but it is at least these two. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think this speaks to the importance in the longrun of having at least two citations for each film. I can tell you that for some of the films I've investigated that while they "bombed" opening weekend in the US, it would be hard to describe it overall as a bomb after considering total US box office run and overseas incomes (not to mention DVD and other ancillary income). The ideal source is not only reliable and calling it a bomb (or some related term) but doing so with some degree of distance rather than merely after opening weekend. That said in my own edits at List of box office bombs (2010s) if there was a source on the original article page describing that the film was a bomb in the headline for opening weekend I've been keeping it on the list, at least for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, to accurately describe a box office bomb it really has to be later than the opening weekend. Something like a month should be enough, and they can always be removed too. I also agree to a rule of two citations. For now I think the List of box office bombs (2000s) is the most urgent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip and Barkeep49: But don't you agree that movies never (or pretty much never) do more business in their second weekend than in their first. The bombs are known by the studios and theater chains even before the first weekend is over!? BornonJune8 06:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitively I agree but my actual experience says it's less great. I think that the point deserves more thought and attention and study. However the articles have much larger issues and so if you want to use a first weekend citation from a RS that doesn't bother me at this point in the articles development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip and Barkeep49: It all depends on expectations which can depend on the time of the year, the budget and other factors. Basically, the studio tracks the film opening and mostly announces a whisper number of what they expect to do. For instance, a $150 million budgeted film is expected to open at least around $50 mm. But it also depends on the time of the year. To put things into proper prospective, a $50 million in the spring-time is just fine, but $50 million on July 4th weekend is probably a disaster because a new blockbuster is coming next week (or two) and will kill any chances of a long run. For smaller (or small-limited opening releases) movies, they key is the per screen average so even if it opens at $10 million, if the per screen average is great or fine, they will count on word of mouth. Therefore, it might make $500,000 on 2 screens, which sounds great but maybe the film will ultimately make only $10 million. Hopefully it’s an Oscar winner/contender, which will more than likely add millions to tens of millions so it all depends. BornonJune8 12:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to what we include as box office bombs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip and Barkeep49: You may noticed that I until just now, left out Looper as a reliable source! BornonJune8 11:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've seen that website and I don't think Looper is a good source for an encyclopaedia but I'm happy to defer to others on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC

I have posted at RSN asking for opinions there as it's the first time I've seen it too and I don't feel comfortable based on what I could see about making a call. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-AfD behaviour.

I get it, you're not happy about the AfD outcome. But editing closed AfD discussions and then spamming the talk pages of those who !voted to delete your pages is not the way to go about this. Those pages are now gone. If you wish to address the topic of "box office bombs", the talk page at the

theWOLFchild 00:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BornonJune8/Archive6&oldid=855107495"