Jump to content

Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎2023: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 525: Line 525:
:If you refer to the source for the loss you will see it is calculated from a worldwide gross of $59 million (including the China gross). This only equates to $8 million less than $67 million, which based on a 25% return would only reduce the projected loss by $2 million. Based on that it would still easily rank in the top 100 money-losers, so I see no basis for removing it from the list. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
:If you refer to the source for the loss you will see it is calculated from a worldwide gross of $59 million (including the China gross). This only equates to $8 million less than $67 million, which based on a 25% return would only reduce the projected loss by $2 million. Based on that it would still easily rank in the top 100 money-losers, so I see no basis for removing it from the list. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
::Ah ok it wasn't clear before, and don't worry I wasn't proposing the removal. Thanks for the answer [[Special:Contributions/146.241.29.200|146.241.29.200]] ([[User talk:146.241.29.200|talk]]) 19:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
::Ah ok it wasn't clear before, and don't worry I wasn't proposing the removal. Thanks for the answer [[Special:Contributions/146.241.29.200|146.241.29.200]] ([[User talk:146.241.29.200|talk]]) 19:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 ==

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

Revision as of 23:18, 19 June 2023

The following discussion 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.


Trimmed list

The list is currently limited to a soft limit of around 100 films. Films cut from the list will be maintained here in the event that we need to re-add one or in case the decision is taken to extend the list at some point. Betty Logan (talk)

Trimmed list
Title Year Production budget Gross Estimated loss (millions) Ref
Nominal Adjusted for inflation [nb 1]
Alice Through the Looking Glass 2016 $170 $299.5 $70+ $89+ [# 1]
Aloha 2015 $37,000,000 $26,300,000 $65,000,000 $84 [# 2]
Babylon 2022 $80 $63.4 $87.4 $91 [# 3]
Battleship 2012 $209,000,000 $303,000,000 $58,000,000 $77 [# 4]
The Bonfire of the Vanities 1990 $47,000,000 $15,700,000 $31,300,000 $73 [# 5]
Catwoman 2004 $100,000,000 $82,100,000 $52,900,000 $85 [# 6]
Conan the Barbarian 2011 $90 $48.8 $60 $81 [# 7]
Cowboys & Aliens 2011 $163 $174.8 $63 $85 [# 8]
Devotion 2022 $90 $21.8 $89 $93 [# 9]
Ender's Game 2013 $110 $125.5 $68 $89 [# 10]
Geostorm 2017 $120 $221.6 $71.6 $89 [# 11]
Ghost in the Shell 2017 $110,000,000 $169,800,000 $60,000,000 $75 [# 12]
Gods and Generals 2003 $55,000,000–60,00,000 $12,900,000 $47,100,000 $78 [# 13]
Happy Feet Two 2011 $135 $158 $65 $88 [# 14]
Hello, Dolly! 1969 $25,300,000 $33,200,000 $10,000,000 $83 [# 15]
Honky Tonk Freeway 1981 $24,000,000 $2,000,000 $22,000,000 $74 [# 16]
Justice League 2017 $300 $657.9 $60 $75 [# 17]
Land of the Lost 2009 $100 $68.8 $64 $91 [# 18]
The Last Castle 2001 $72,000,000 $27,600,000 $44,400,000 $76 [# 19]
Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return 2014 $70 $20.1 $71 $91 [# 20]
The Lovely Bones 2009 $65,000,000 $93,600,000 $58,000,000 $82 [# 21]
Lucky You 2007 $55 $8.4 $61 $90 [# 22]
Mr. Peabody & Sherman 2014 $145,000,000 $275,700,000 $57,000,000 $73 [# 23]
Nine 2009 $80,000,000 $54,000,000 $57,000,000 $81 [# 24]
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms 2018 $120,000,000 $173,900,000 $65,800,000 $80 [# 25]
One from the Heart 1982 $26,000,000 $600,000 $25,400,000 $80 [# 26]
Quest for Camelot 1998 $40,000,000 $38,200,000 $40,000,000 $75 [# 27]
Revolution 1985 $28,000,000 $400,000 $27,600,000 $78 [# 28]
Rollerball 2002 $70 $25.9 $54 $91 [# 29]
Rush Hour 3 2007 $140 $258 $59 $87 [# 30]

Other flops with unknown losses

Filmsite.org

Betty Logan (talk)

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.

New additions

Wouldn't it be time to add Chaos Walking and Snake Eyes?

Snake Eyes has a break even point of at least $160m, but it has earned only $35m WW. This translates to a loss of $125m

Chaos Walking has a Budget of $100m and has earned only $22m. At best this is a net loss of $78m, and this number disregards other costs, which would possibly push it past $80m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e08:698b:7dc7:f3f0:a842:d1b (talkcontribs) 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As these are still relatively new films and still in theaters, it would be too early to include them. --Masem (t) 04:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Box Office Mojo, Chaos Walking ended it's theatrical run on May 13th 2021, after 10 weeks. While it's true that Snake Eyes has only finished 4 weeks of its theatrical run, it has had a very weak staying power and a low overseas turnout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:e08:698b:891:db0a:f9a3:3ffe (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RESPECT was a huge flop but no one wants to say why Blacks stayed away in droves. TruthCounts1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respect only lost about $22M, far below the level of inclusion for this list. We don't consider why there are box office losses for films. Masem (t) 18:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Heights and Reminiscence

In the Heights had a $55 million budget, made $43,879,041 worldwide, and has a break-even point of $200,000,000. Reminiscence had a budget of $54–68 million, made $11,192,816 worldwide and has a break-even point of $110 million.

--Fladoodle (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that The Last Duel should be added. It bombed, grossing almost $30 million against a $100 million budget. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep an eye out for it, but ultimately we need somebody to report how much money was lost on it. We've only just added Chaos Walking to the list for this reason. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content

CageToRattle has removed Wonder Woman 1984 on several occasions now, because he disagrees with the appraisal that it has lost money. Regardless of the merits of his argument this is simply not our call to make; it is not our appraisal it has lost money, but the appraisal of The Hollywood Reporter and The Numbers. It is true that Wonder Woman 1984 played simultaneously on HBO Max which in turn impacted its performance at the box-office, but this is not a concern for this list. This list is simply a list of films that have lost the most money, as appraised by industry sources and analysts.

Films streamed on subscription based services don't have a traditional income stream: this issue was recently at the heart of the lawsuit Scarlett Johansson filed against Disney who had a gross points in Black Widow. In this scenario Black Widow was turned into a "loss-leader" for the streaming service, and it is likely this is true for Wonder Woman 1984. But here is the key point: if Wonder Woman 1984 was re-positioned as a loss-leader it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to determine that loss-leaders should be excluded from such a list! It is up to industry writers and analysts to reframe their commentary on what constitutes a loss. As it stands, The Numbers currently has Wonder Woman 1984] down as the second-biggest money-loser (bottom chart) and that is what matters as far as we are concerned. Mulan is next on the list and was also in a similar situation to Wonder Woman and Black Widow.

If sources did not regard these films as "flops/bombs/money-losers" then we would not either. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to disagree with sources and manipulate content accordingly; that is WP:Original research. On a wider point I have noticed that CageToRattle has also removed content from other articles where he personally disagrees with the inclusion of the list entry, regardless of the sourcing. This needs to stop; editorial judgment does not alone trump reliable sources that adopt a contradictory opinion, and blanking content you disagree with is disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're just going to think about adding Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , because this film bombed and have the worst lowest opening of the Wizarding World and it's grossed only $379 million against a $200 million budget. MLJ 657 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It marking was also a futher $21 million acrodding to it pages and now gross $389 million 92.236.253.249 (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

355

"The 355" states it has a loss of $93 million, but the budget was $40 -$75 million, with a worldwide gross of $27.7 million. The actual loss would be $12.3 - 47.3 million, not $93 million. The $93 million appears to be the sum of the $75 million upper bound budget and the worldwide gross of $27.7 million rounded down. I would fix it myself, but I have no idea how to even begin to fix it in the table without braking the entire table.

2601:742:8101:B760:718A:6E9B:480C:1E5E (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Procrastinating Wanderer

According to the source the loss is calculated from expenses of $103 million (including $75 million production costs) and income of $10 million (based on global box-office of $19 million), so a loss of $93 million is correctly calculated based on the figures The Numbers uses. Obviously you would arrive at a different figure if the lower estimate for the budget was accurate but it's not our place to second guess the source unless the figures they based their calculations on are demonstrably incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another new addition

Wouldn't be a big time to add Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore because it's bombed with 400.8 million against a $200 Millon budget with further 21 million. I think we might add it on the list as well. MLJ 657 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors don't decide when it's time to add a film to the list. Films are added when relaible sources determine how much they will lose. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightyear

Lightyear is now being considered the third flop from Pixar.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:A004:25F7:84D0:5DAC:9523:1909 (talkcontribs) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rubin, Rebecca. "Box Office: Pixar's 'Lightyear' Underwhelms With $51 Million Debut as 'Jurassic World' Stays No. 1". Penske Media Corporation. Variety. Retrieved 29 June 2022.

Added icon for films with simultaneous streaming release

I decided to "be bold" and added an icon (§) to represent films that were released at the same time, or nearly the same time, on a streaming service as in the theaters. (I somewhat arbitrarily set it to be "streamed less than 30 days after its theatrical release" in order to handle Onward, which in the United States got its streaming release two weeks after its theatrical release.) This should hopefully alleviate some of the controversy about the inclusion of some of the COVID-era films. And maybe it will enable the inclusion of Turning Red, which according to The Numbers is not just a box-office bomb but the biggest bomb of all time, with a $167 million loss. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I am ok with the note because I think it does have some impact on the reported losses. However, I don't think it is correct to imply revenue from streaming is completely excluded. Many of the projected losses here factor in more than just box-office. For example, all the profit and loss figures taken from The Numbers are "based on domestic and international box office earnings and domestic video sales, extrapolated to estimate worldwide income to the studio, after deducting retail costs." It's not clear how that works in the case of streaming. For example, Netflix might purchase a film for a set fee which will probably count as revenue towards the film, but the film will not generate "box office" for each viewing. The fee may even be variable based on the number of hits it gets. We simply don't know. So I think it's ok to mark out the special cases, but we shouldn't be making assumptions about how streaming income is handled. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up the icons, and I'm glad you agree it makes sense. The wording in the intro about streaming revenues is probably enough to explain the situation. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it more complicated is that many streaming services, such as Disney+, are now owned by movie studios, which means the studios can release a movie on their own streaming service at no cost to themselves. And some of these movies-- Turning Red, Space Jam: A New Legacy, and Wonder Woman: 1984, to name only three-- did very well their respective studio-owned streaming services. While it is certainly true that these movies did not earn their budgets back in theaters, and indeed fell far short of doing so, they were considered successful by their studios because their streaming releases more than compensated for that.
Given that they were released simultaneously in theaters and on streaming services, these movies were not necessarily required to earn back their budgets in theaters in order to be "successful". Calling them box-office bombs, while technically correct, feels more than a little unfair, since it essentially means holding them up to the same standard as movies released in theaters alone. 68.71.166.188 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we have tried to highlight the playing field is not a level one for these films, but we are ultimately limited by what is reported. Eventually, the industry press is going to have to reappraise what it means to be a bomb. With streaming we are going to get to the point where a film could "lose" $100 million but is regarded as a success in the sense of the perceived value it has added to the streaming service. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that as long as this is a list of "box office bombs", we can continue to list films that do poorly at the box office, regardless of streaming numbers. This may be difficult if the industry continues to obscure film finances, and now use profits from streaming to hide losses at the box office, so we'll just have to hope that we can continue to find sourcing. (jmho) - wolf 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bros

Bros made 4 million of its 22 million budget. Please add it to the list. 2601:41:C080:2E20:512C:FA88:216F:E40A (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list covers the top 100 box-office bombs. Bros is a box-office bomb, but it is not top 100. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Adam

@DougheGojiraMan: You need to stop removing this, it's a sourced entry, and there are several other sources that state this film lost money at the box office. Just because one article (and The Rock's twitter account... seriously?) claim the film "might" make enough profit in the future via streaming and tv fees, (in other words; not at the box office) is not sufficient justification for removal. Read the lead of this article, and then read WP:RS (actually, you should read that second one before you edit anything on Wikipedia). - wolf 01:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly this article [1] is a projection of the film's total take, not yet confirmed because of overseas. So we can't use estimates for this. Masem (t) 01:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair fair fair DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escape From Planet Earth

I found out the budget is 40 Million dollars and the box office is 74.6 Million dollars, is it a hit or a flop. P.S. it came out in 2013 173.238.231.70 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Called Otto

This Movie Budget is $50 million and it only made $18.7 million, and it considers a Box Office Bomb 173.238.231.70 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Disney The Black Cauldron 1985 on Biggest Box Office Bombs page?

To the Wikipedia users. I have tried to add The Black Cauldron on here. Can I ask why you're not accepting it? Disney's The Black Cauldron 1985 is one of the biggest Disney animated flop ever at the box office and almost bankrupted the Walt Disney Animation studios. It costed them 44 million and they only made back about 21 million and they lost 23 million at the box office. I have watched the Disney Plus documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty which they talked about how Disney Animation was struggling before the change and take over with Michael Eisner.

Also here's some website articles like Collider which backs up my proof and claim that this film needs to be accepted on List of biggest box-office bombs Wikipedia page.

How The Black Cauldron Nearly Killed Disney Animation (collider.com)

Please include The Black Cauldron since it was Disney's biggest animated flop. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This list has a total loss cutoff of at least $80M in 2023 dollars (last I checked, it may have gone up) as to prevent the list from being too long. $23M in 1985 is only around $65M in today's dollars, so it falls short of inclusion. Masem (t) 13:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there a way we can include The Black Cauldron 1985 on Biggest Box Office Bombs? It was historically important, and it almost bankrupted Walt Disney Animation Studios. I was about 2 years old when The Black Cauldron came out and I almost have no memory of it until it came out on VHS in 1998. CrosswalkX (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cut special deals to get films on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are other films missing on the Biggest Box Office Bombs list including The Thief and the Cobbler 1992 by Richard Williams which also flopped at the box office. CrosswalkX (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Look Up

If everyone didn't notice but There's a Box Office Bomb based on real life, Don't Look Up (film) (2021). While I searching randomly, this movie cost 75 million dollars to make and it only grossed 791,296 dollars, the reason why It's because it's only shown in Australia... ouch. 173.238.231.70 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that film was only given the brief theatrical release so that it would qualify for awards such as the Oscars (see here). Films that are bought by a streaming service and intentionally given a limited theatrical release are not the same as "box office bombs". - wolf 21:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we include films like Turning Red included. We use a special mark to indicate these works that were released to streaming services either as their only route or day-and-date as theatrical releases. However, we do want a third-party source to call it a box-office bomb (as there is sourcing for Turning Red) and not just our read of the numbers. Masem (t) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key point here though is that Netflix financed Don't Look Up under a streaming model. The financial equation simply doesn't apply to subscription based streaming services because the primary metric for judging its success will be the number of customers who streamed it. Turning Red on the other hand was conceived for a theatrical release and had a theatrical-sized budget to match. I can certainly see the logic here as to why Turning Red is considered a bomb and Don't Look Up isn't. The difficult calls in the future will be hybrid productions—those that have a traditional theatrical roll-out in some markets while being streamed in others. The industry press will have to figure out how to grapple with these definitions, but it won't really affect us: if the sources exist for us to add something to the list then we will add it, if they don't then we can't. What does and does not qualify as a "bomb" is beyond our remit as Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key factor of this list is "box office bombs", and it should focus on that; films that were created for and released in theaters and were either financially successful at the box office or they weren't, and if they weren't then they need to have sourcing that indicated they were a "bomb", (or failure, loser, etc) and have have losses high enough to warrant inclusion here (currently $80M). A movie could be created for a streaming release and possibly not meet the expectations of the streaming service, (maybe even to the point of being their equivalent of a bomb), but that doesn't make it a "box office bomb". (imho) - wolf 00:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder. It was in theaters only in Australia just 21 days before it officially came into streaming on Netflix globally. 173.238.231.70 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually at U.S.A. not Australia. On December 5th 2021, it's released only in New York, U.S.A. On December 10th 2021, it's released only in U.S.A. Finally on December 15th 2021, It's released on Netflix globally 173.238.231.70 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News outlets have said that this movie flopped at the box office, so should this movie be added to this page? Thanks. :) Mattgelo (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it meets the numerical threshold of $85 million and we can source it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shazam: Fury Of The Gods

Over the past few weeks, Shazam 2 box office bomb is trending on Youtube & Tiktok whenever I scrolled. Is it really a Box Office Bomb? Or is it just me? 173.238.231.70 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers don't look good for it but it's not clear how much it has lost as yet. If one of the Trades can put a figure on the losses then we can consider it for the list then. Betty Logan (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Factor

I believe Chill Factor's inclusion on the Top 100 list is an error. Its own Wikipedia page and every source I can find on it list its production budget as half of what is written on this chart, and the source used here doesn't seem wholly reputable to me. If it is an error, it should be taken off and a runner-up should be put in (btw, Reminiscence has a couple of publications that say it needed $110 million to break even, and it grossed $16m- should be enough for the list, no?) Claystripe (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several publications put the budget at $70 million. If this correct then on the basis of the source provided it would potentially rank among the top 100 money-losing films. It's not the place of editors to second guess sources, unless they are demonstrably proven to be wrong. Even if we could ascertain that the source is incorrect about the budget—thereby negating its place in the list—this would not result in restoring The Cotton Club to the list, which remains below the $85 million threshold. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about Moonfall

In the ranking I see Moonfall (2022) with an estimated cost of 138M and a gross of 44M for a total loss of 138M. However the final gross of the film was 67M thanks to the release in China several months later, in this case can someone update it and redo the calculations? 146.241.29.200 (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the source for the loss you will see it is calculated from a worldwide gross of $59 million (including the China gross). This only equates to $8 million less than $67 million, which based on a 25% return would only reduce the projected loss by $2 million. Based on that it would still easily rank in the top 100 money-losers, so I see no basis for removing it from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok it wasn't clear before, and don't worry I wasn't proposing the removal. Thanks for the answer 146.241.29.200 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023

So far in June, I don't see any lists for this year, 2023, box office bombs. Is it for saved for later, or is it something else. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=#> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=#}} template (see the help page).