Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs

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

Other flops with unknown losses

Filmsite.org

• Paint Your Wagon (film)
• Zabriskie Point (film)
• The Message (1976 film)
• Sorcerer (film)
• Raise the Titanic (film)
• Lion of the Desert
• Roar (1981 film)
• Dune (1984 film)
• Howard the Duck (film)
• Shanghai Surprise
• Leonard Part 6
• Last Action Hero
• Judge Dredd (film)
• Money Train (film)
• Speed 2: Cruise Control
• The Avengers (1998 film)
• Meet Joe Black
• Wild Wild West

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 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Last Duel

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)

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)

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)

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lightyear

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

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair fair fair DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We don't cut special deals to get films on to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

No but The Black Cauldron really did flop in theaters, I was 2 years old when The Black Cauldron came out and I never heard about it until it released on VHS in 1998. By the way Betty Logan, we need to consider creating a separate Wikipedia page called "List of biggest animated box-office bombs". And have this Wikipedia page List of biggest box-office bombs be for the live action films or retitle it "List of biggest live action box-office bombs" since the list is getting too big for the Wikipedia page.

Also, there are many other animated films which are not listed here which flopped including Playmobil: The Movie. Artic Dogs, Mr. Bug Goes to Town, The Black Cauldron, Uglydolls, The Thief and the Cobbler, The Iron Giant, Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, The Pebble and the Penguin and many more which are missing, and I would like to see them included for Wikipedia history page. CrosswalkX (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds if not thousands of box-office bombs, but that's not WP's place to list them all as that list would be far too extensive. We have opted to limit the list to around 100 entries, using the magnitude of the losses as the way to determine the largest box-office bombs to include. I suspect many many animated films are bombs, but their losses are just too small to include. Masem (t) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So what? there are many live-action bombs that are not on the list. The reason The Black Cauldron is not on the list is either sources do not exist for its losses (making it impossible for us to source how much it lost), or it simply didn't lose enough to be among the top 100 money-losers. You have to draw the line somewhere. Many lists are limited to 50 entries; we limit this one to films that are potentially among the top 100. As I said above, we don't construct the list with the express intention to include or to exclude any particular film. Also, it's not a list of the biggest "live-action" bombs, it is a list of the biggest bombs, period. There are nine animated films on the list as far as I can tell: A Christmas Carol (2009), Final Fantasy, The Good Dinosaur, Lightyear, Mars Needs Moms, Rise of the Guardians', Sinbad, Strange World and Treasure Planet. Why would we remove those films to make the list less complete? You wouldn't remove animated films from the List of highest-grossing films would you? Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

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)

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

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)

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)

Shazam 2 is a certified box office bomb, it lost the studio $150M. It needs to be added to the list. Source: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/4/8hd602v39lpkca2ge6qlihkbl5oxbg#:~:text='Shazam!,the%20DCEU%20and%20Warner%20Bros. Kala7992 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A little bit of both, I'd say. When a film tanks it usually takes a while to ascertain how much it will lose; 2023 films will probably start to appear on the list towards the end of the year, and mostly next year. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2023 bombs should be added to this page. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Did anyone suggest they wouldn't be? If a bomb is currently missing from the list, and there's proper sourcing to back the amount, then obviously it should be added. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Flash and Elemental

The Flash and Elemental, both 2023 5.89.159.67 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They just opened, far too soon to add Masem (t) 19:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree but we should wait for a few weeks Hungry403 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is The Flash already included but not Elemental? 2601:601:A400:5710:253C:6788:76D4:5E09 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Elemental is no longer a flop, it just crossed the $300M mark and since the studio intends to keep it in theaters until Labour Day its definitely gonna break even, box office analysts projected it could make around $400-$500M in total, a remarkable comeback story. Source: https://collider.com/elemental-global-box-office-311-million/ Kala7992 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Stated budget of $200m not including marketing, right now sitting at $317m 70.57.81.77 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The Flash´s lead in text already links back to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flash_(film) I too think that WB deserves the grace of finishing the theatrical run and still have to see a trade put a figure on the projected loss but it is guaranteed to meet the criteria with flying colors. 2023 is a very busy year for flops! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.229 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell 2017 should meet the criteria of the proper list

Resolved

 – Film has been restored to the list under an alternative costing scenario Betty Logan (talk)

GitS is all but confirmed to have lost more than "at least $60M" and that projected 60+ million loss was if it made 200 million. It made 169.8 million. Secondly this: "Some sources even assert that the production cost for Ghost is far north of $110M and more in the $180M range — if that’s the case, Ghost is bleeding in excess of $100M." https://deadline.com/2017/04/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-box-office-flop-whitewash-1202061479/

A trade stated that a loss of 100 million was in play, with 2017 money, and we know that a loss of more than 60 million was easily achieved as shown by me. Tenet made the main list with a similar range. If it made it then so did GitS with a range of 60 - 100+ million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.37 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for raising the issue, we will look into it. It's not a perfect list, we are aware there are omissions, it's just a case of finding the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Films to watch (struggling according to sources)

These are assuming the rule of thumb 2.0 to 2.5% in profits. [2]

• Elemental (2023 film) -
  • $200M budget -> $400/500M break even
• Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny -
  • $295M budget -> $590/$737.5M break even
• Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken -
  • $70M budget -> $140/$175M break even
• The Flash (film) -
  • $200 to $220M budget -> $400/$440 $500/$550M break even

These break even amounts could be wrong, I am just going by the source per WP:CALC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Still in theatres, we gotta wait but these could all go on the list Hungry403 (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead section is too long

Since we already have an article about Box-office bomb, I don't see why there needs to be a rewritten summary of this in the lead. The lead should focus on the list's content, and scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of the info is "this is why you will find films on this list" (like the COVID impact) or why you won't find certain films on this list (like Cleopatra). The separate BOB article doesn't cover all these facets that make more sense in presence of the list. Masem (t) 03:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, the lead provides valuable context for how a film qualifies for the list, and has evolved out of common questions we sometimes get on the talk page i.e. how a film can still be a flop if it grosses more than its budget and so on. I have seen featured lists with more prose than this. I don't see how it's an issue, unless you have suggestions for what should be excised. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add a section header to the last three paragraphs, but I don't know of a good section name, like "Background" doesn't seem right. That would help alleviate the "long lede" problem. Masem (t) 14:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"Calculating loss" or something along those lines would be my preference, but I'm board with your suggestion. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Table split

In some cases, the estimated loss is imprecise and we have more than estimate. These estimates are represented by ranges. Knowledgekid87 has split the table into two, between those estimates that are represented by a single figure, and those by a range, on the grounds that some of those represented by a range would not qualify for the list under the carefully constructed criteria.

I understand the logic here, but I have a problem with how the split has been executed. I don't oppose splitting out films to a secondary table on the premise that in the case of their lower-bound estimate they may not be among the top 100, but this is not the case in some of the films. A case in point would be John Carter, which emphatically qualifies for the list under its lower-bound estimate. On that basis I think those films that qualify under the lower-bound estimate should be restored to the primary table. Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement. Having the single, linear table allows for immediate comparison among any and all films. The two different tables serve the same purpose. All entries were defaulted to the highest loss supported by sourcing, which is the point of this list - it's right in the article name.

Splitting the table into two parts, simply based on films with a loss range vs films with a single number is not needed and only serves to diminish the overall value and usefulness of this article, especially as a quick-reference. This also opens the door to additional splits based on other parameters, again diminishing the page further. (JMHO) - wolf 08:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a preference for the singular table too, although I appreciate the underlying logic. I wish Knowledgekid87 had proposed this first, since it's a major structural change. I did revert but felt that was discourteous given the amount of work he had put into good-faith edit so undid my revert so we could discuss this further. The main problem I have with it (apart from the issue you highlight that having two tables complicates the comparison) is that some of the biggest bombs of all-time (John Carter, Lone Ranger, Mars needs Moms etc) are now relegated to a secondary table. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If you compare the two lists, you will see that these films by some estimates were not the biggest box office bombs of all time. John Carter for example) has a given range of $143–255M which means that by some estimates Mortal Engines with an agreed upon $204M loss would surpass that. Its misleading to say that the estimated top end makes it the "biggest of all time". Same with Lone Ranger... If you take the estimated low of $201M it still falls behind Mortal Engines, but the table does not sort it that way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the split. We just need to establish what the sorting logic is for a range v. a single value. (I would go with low-end on ranges for sorting as to be conservative). Masem (t) 14:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We all seem to oppose the split, and agree that the real issue is the sorting mechanism (although I would point out that the default mode is an alphabetic ordering, so I think that mitigates the neutrality problem to an extent. There are three ways to address the sorting: we sort high or low (they both have their relative merits), or we avoid the issue completely and add a second column for lower and upper-bound losses, allowing readers to choose how they sort. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing that as I did with List of large Holocene volcanic eruptions#Exact year unknown. It would solve the high/low estimate bias. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the list the starts the "Before Common Era (BCE)" it is clear those dates are not exact - look how many end on a 0. They can narrow down the timing to a decade, but no narrower. It is clearly a bad split and needs to be restored. Same on this. Masem (t) 04:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I split the list to go along with a WP:NPOV as right now the losses are sorted by their estimated high end value. Why would splitting up the list have an adverse effect on the article? It makes editing easier with two tables to manage instead of one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

See the question below? The split causes confusion. We can talk about fixing the NPOV by sorting on the upper end, but the split makes maintenance a logistical mess. Masem (t) 03:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I have re-merged the two tables because it is clear from this discussion that nobody thinks this is the way to address the sorting issue and it is also causing confusion. I am going to start a new discussion to address the sorting issue, so the points are not conflated. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Betty. For anyone else, (K87, Masem, etc.) you'll note awhile back that I changed/added markup so that films with a range for their box office totals defaulted to the higher number in the range (see here). Afterall, this is the list of biggest bombs, so films should be ranked by the biggest sourced losses (imho). Films with ranges are marked, so even if they don't individually slot in to the lower end of the range when sorting, I don't see that as taking away from the quality of the list, or making it in any way confusing for the majority of readers, and not a reason to split the table into multiple tables. That I believe takes away from the quality of the article and leads to confusion. I have read Kk87's comments and don't wish to outright dismiss them. If they, and others, wanted to look at somehow highlighting the films with ranges and perhaps noting the different rankings they could potentially have, that's a discussion that could lead to possible solutions for Kk87's concerns. - wolf 04:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the table sorting issue is a moot point. We can structure the table to sort by both the upper and lower bound (see the mock-up in the section below). It is relative straightforward to implement, and would address any neutrality concerns that Knowledgekid87 has. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Table sorting

Okay, following on from the discussion above, what we have is an incomplete list of films that are potentially among the top 100 money-losers. It is possible that not every film that should be present is on the list. In addition, there are more than 100 films on the list because in some cases there are differing estimates. Conflicting loss estimates are represented by number ranges; in all cases the upper-bound estimate would see the film potentially ranked among the top 100 money-losers, while in many cases the lower-bound estimate would result in it not.

This has resulted in a number of design issues to be consistent with WP:NPOV:

• The hard numerical threshold for the top 100 is in the $90–95 million range (adjusted), so to keep this simple we set the inclusion threshold at an upper-bound loss of $90 million. This goes up slightly each year (last year it was $85 million).
• There are no numerical ranks. It is impossible to know for sure which is the top money-loser, which is the second-biggest and so on.
• In line with the previous point, the default ordering is alphabetic.

The table is sortable, which creates an issue for how to sort losses. We currently sort on the upper-bound estimate. One editor (Knowledgekid87) believes this creates a NPOV issue. So let's consider our options, and the arguments for and against.

1. We simply make the table non-sortable – I do not favor this. I think it would make the table less functional and less useful than it could be. I think most readers would prefer to be able to sort the table in such a way that the biggest money-losers are easily retrievable, which requires a sorting mechanism.
2. We split out those films represented by a loss range into a second table (per this solution) – Personally I am not a fan; this approach has already caused confusion, and it makes it inherently more difficult to compare the biggest money-losers if they are spread over two tables. It works against the interests of what this page is designed to do.
3. We stick with the status quo and sort on the upper-bound estimate – There is an encyclopedic reason for this: the inclusion criteria is "potentially among the top 100 money-losers", and it is the upper-bound estimate that determines it. For example, if you are comparing the biggest money losers, it helps to have John Carter at the top of the table rather than halfway down it. I do not see this as non-neutral because there is no numbering system attached.
4. We sort on the lower-bound estimate – This would be a conservative approach that essentially sorts the list by focusing on the amount that each film is reasonably guaranteed to have lost, rather than might have lost. It focuses on factually guaranteed losses, rather than potential losses. However, I do not see this as any more or less encyclopedic than the previous solution since there is no numbering system. From an editorial perspective it would make maintaining the cut-off threshold slightly easier, but I don't think that should be a decisive factor.
5. The loss is represented by two columns – Having two columns to represent the upper and a lower-bounds would eliminate the issue completely and allow readers to sort by how they choose. This approach is advocated at Help:Sortable_tables#Numerical_ranges. It would only take an hour or so to implement so it would not be time prohibitive to do.
6. [NEW OPTION] – Another option would be two add two sort keys to column. It would keep redundancy to the minimum. I have mocked up a sample below.

I am on board with any of the last four solutions. The first option would be too limiting, and we agree that the second opens up a can of worms. The singular aim of a sortable table is to enable comparison, so we need to be mindful of that. What do readers want out of this article and how do we facilitate that? Betty Logan (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say #4 makes the most sense, followed by #5. I see where #3 is coming from as a form of sorting, though for inclusion, the upper end makes sense. Masem (t) 01:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Mock-up with two sortkeys

Biggest box-office bombs

Title	Year	Net production budget (millions)	Worldwide gross (millions)	Estimated loss (millions)			Ref.
				Nominal		Adjusted for inflation
The 13th Warrior	1999	$100–160	$61.7	$69–129		$126–236
47 Ronin	2013	$175–225	$151.8	$96		$126
The 355	2022	$40–75	$27.7	$93		$105
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen	1988	$46.6	$8.1	$38.5		$99
The Adventures of Pluto Nash	2002	$100	$7.1	$96		$163
The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle	2000	$76–98.6	$35.1	$63.5		$112
The Alamo	2004	$107	$25.8	$94		$152
Alexander	2004	$155	$167.3	$71		$115
Ali	2001	$107	$87.7	$63		$108
Allied	2016	$85	$118.6	$75–90		$95–114

Knights of the Zodiac

The Saint Seiya movie, Knights of the Zodiac, was also a flop. Should it be added here? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on its $60M budget and $6.8M take (from the infobox), the loss is only about $50-55M which means that it falls below the threshold of this table which is right now around $85M. Masem (t) 15:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading to Have Production Budget?

The lead for the section for the table states that the losses include ancillary, marketing, and distribution costs but the table only uses the production budget as a column for the costs. I think this is misleading because simply comparing the total gross and production budget sometimes make a loss confusing and instead there should be a total cost column. For example, the Good Dinosaur has a production budget of $175M-200M and the total gross as $322.2M so the Good Dinosaur should have a profit of $147.2M-122.2M but it supposedly had a loss of $85M nominal. For another example, John Carter is listed with a budget of $263.7M and a total gross of $284.1M so it should have a profit of $20.4M but it's listed as having a loss of $112M-200M nominal. Is there a solution that makes no movie have have a profit when doing calculations? Michael Ly Vietnam (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We can only provide the information we ourselves have, which unfortunately is usually the gross, the budget and the overall loss. I honestly don't think it's that confusing if you bother to read the lead of the article, which clarifies why a film can still loses money even in cases where the gross exceeds the budget. By the same token you could argue that including the grosses is also misleading because it is not representative of the studio's income from the film. Including the budget and gross is not essential to the article but they do provide readers with a sense of the overall financial scale of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Jones the Dial of Destiny

Didn't it bomb harder than even the Flash? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Both will definitely enter the list, Indy may even top it. But they're still in theatres. Gotta wait for final numbers before adding them.--2804:D4B:79BD:8F00:85AD:3E88:64AD:E305 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So, did indy ultimately top it? 151.34.24.132 (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Likely, but we'll have to wait for the final production budget numbers to come in, as well as for the box office run to end. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we there yet on Indy? Asgrrr (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions

The Flash

I have had to remove this a couple of times now. On both occasions its $200 million loss has been sourced to this Yahoo article which in turn is quoting a box-office analyst on Twitter. There are two problems here: i) I see no evidence that the Twitter source is an authoritative source for these types of claims. Does he work for Variety? Does he work for The Wall Street Journal? I see no evidence of credibility. ii) The second problem is that he doesn't actually say the film has lost $200 million, or even project that it will, he is simply hypothesizing that it "could"! The film should not be added back until there is a more authoritative source available i.e. The Numbers/Deadline/The Hollywood Reporter etc. If the film loses that much money, then it will be reported in the ensuing months. Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masem and Thewolfchild: As regular editors of this article do either of you have views on this addition. Note that the subsequent Forbes article only calls it a flop, it doesn't say how much the film has lost. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Forbes contributor articles are not reliable sources per WP:RS/P. Masem (t) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just plugging "the flash box office bomb" into Google seems to bring up a lot of results; [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],[14] ...so there's no question that it's widely considered a box-office bomb. It's really just a question of whether or not it lost enough money to meet the threshold for inclusion on our list. - wolf 16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is any doubt that it had bombed, but having looked through several of those sources I haven't come across any other saying it lost $200 million. That seems to be speculation at this point. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This $200M number is unfortunately somewhat of a distraction, as far as this list goes. We don't need sources to confirm it lost $200M, just that it lost more than $90M (adj). I wish some of these fly-by editors would realize that. And that there is no rush to get any film listed. - wolf 18:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the film will be on the list before the end of the year. That 200 mil figure may even turn out to be accurate, but I would prefer to not degrade the standard of sourcing just to get films on the list a bit quicker. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we shouldn't be in a rush to include it. Makes sense to wait for proper sourcing that confirms the actual amount. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Update It has been brought to my attention that the Yahoo article discussed above is a reprint of this article at SuperHeroHype, which is definitely not a reliable source. Kala7992 I am sorry to see you have been blocked; I think it's a shame it came to that. I assure you that nobody here has an ulterior motive to keep certain films off this list; we are all committed to making it as accurate as possible. But that has to be done via authoritative sourcing. Fansites such as SuperHeroHype, people on Twitter and blogs such as WorldOfReel are simply not good enough sources for complex financial analysis. I am fairly certain both The Flash and Indy 5 will be on this list before the end of the year. I am not so sure about Shazam due to fact it cost far less than some of the other films you have mentioned, but if we find suitable sourcing it will be added. This list is comprehensive and films are not given a free pass just because we may like the film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Its okay, thank you for clarifying, sorry I overreacted Kala7992 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw Black Adam was added a month after it released, were there legitimate sources for the movie’s losses at that time? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The source is accessible, so you can read it for yourself. The loss projections for Black Adam are attributed to "insiders and rival executives". When we get a comparable source for The Flash it will be added. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we really several months later without a source deemed “reliable” for The Flash? That 200m figure is being reported quite often. GarlicBreadBen (talk) GarlicBreadBen (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Reported quite often by who? So far I haven't seen any of the reputable trade publications reporting its losses. Indiana Jones has just been added to the list, and The Flash will be in due course. If it isn't, then it will almost certainly turn up in Deadline's "biggest bombs of the year" list in the New Year. I would be surprised if it lost as much as $200 million; it cost less than The Lone Ranger, and grossed more, and that film only lost $160–190 million. My guess is that its losses are in the $100–150 million range, but we will see! Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Flash - the Guardian, sited the Flash as a box office bomb. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny-the-flash-bombed-box-office-harrison-ford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.112.218 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That article was published a couple weeks after the Flash was in theaters, far too soon for any way to call it a BOB. All future sources show that while it wasn't a blockbuster, it also wasn't the bomb that these articles projected. Masem (t) 13:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you produce sources showing the Flash is not a box-office bomb? Below are sources indicating movie tanked at the theatres.

https://heroichollywood.com/the-flash-becomes-historic-box-office-bomb/#:~:text=However%2C%20that%20budget%20comes%20in,%24200%20million%20on%20the%20film.&text=This%20%24200%20million%20loss%20puts,office%20bomb%20in%20Hollywood%20history.

https://thedirect.com/article/the-flash-movie-box-office-flop-hollywood

https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-flash-movie-dc-box-office-bomb-breakdown-2258888/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/comics/2023/07/01/the-flash-box-office/ 96.244.112.218 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It may have lost money, but the problem is that we only have a sourced production budget, and an unknown estimate of marketing. There is no source that gives a loss that is against the total box office of $270m that gives the known costs in the $200-$220M range. If its marketing was only $100M (which is a reasonable rule of thumb), then its losses are only $30m, too small for this table. The loss figure of $200M that is often sited is being pulled out of thin air and does not corroborate with any other sources that we have. Masem (t) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

When a reliable source posts a loss figure based on analysis rather than speculation we will add it to the list, if it qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Shazam 2

The same editor that is repeatedly adding The Flash is now repeatedly adding Shazam 2 sourced to this blog. Blogs are not considered reliable sources per WP:BLOGS, unless the person behind them is an established authority in their field i.e. they have been reliably published in the past for claims of a similar nature. This does not appear to be the case here. There is nothing to suggest that either "World of Reel" or the person behind (Jordan Ruimy) is reliable for financial anlysis.

The edit summary reasoned that it makes no sense to remove it because it grossed "less than The Suicide Squad". It is not for us to second guess why some films make the list and some don't, but I would proffer that it cost substantially less than The Suicide Squad, meaning that the break-even point is much lower. What doesn't make sense here is the fact that despite costing far less than The Suicide Squad (at least $60 million) and grossing only $30 million less, according to the "World of Reel" it somehow lost $30 million more.

Adding films attributed to low quality sourcing is not in the interests of the article. If these films did indeed lose such sums of money that they qualify for the list then reputable sources will pick that up in the next few months. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would really like to argue that no film should be added to this list until at least a month into the regular public release of the film (for films that are scheduled for mass theater releases, post-COVID). If there are still sources calling it a bomb after that period, and have the math to justify inclusion, great. But we shouldn't be jumping on sources that claim a film has bombed a week after release (as I've seen some say for Indy 5). Masem (t) 00:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There used to be an old rule in Hollywood that you didn't know if you had a hit until the third weekend. I don't think that especially holds true anymore for hits, but I think it does for bombs. A film can turn it around in the second week and then have low drops from then on. Both Titanic and Avatar were branded bombs off their sub-par opening weekends and look how that turned out. I think the problem with an arbitrary time-limit is that we can kind of see where Indy is going to end up now ($350–400 million) so if The Hollywood Reporter or Deadline were to put out some loss estimates on that basis in the next week then it would be difficult to put forward a policy based rationale for keeping them off the list. On the other hand, a month in some cases may not be long enough, because the trajectory can be even more elongated over the Christmas period or if a film has a slow roll-out. But I think if we double-down on high quality sourcing (which as a rule doesn't jump the gun) then we will avoid this kind of reactionary journalism (if you can call it that). Betty Logan (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus the effects of overseas. Films that "bomb" in the US may have great success in China (like Elemental, [15]). So I do agree that we should be looking at high quality RSs - namely the golden trio of Variety, THR and Deadline - to judge whether something is a bomb or not. Masem (t) 01:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The Fabelmans

The Fabelmans should be added to this page as well. Just like The BFG and West Side Story, its box office results were sour compared to any Spielberg project (grossing $45 million on a $40 million budget.) Don't you all agree? Aeiou13579 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Its box-office was poor but that doesn't necessarily make it a bomb. The BFG and West Side Story were $100 million movies with sizable marketing budgets so they consequently lost a lot of money. The Fabelmans was a $40 million movie, so unless it had a blockbuster sized marketing costs (which it probably didn't have) then it won't have lost enough to make it on to this list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ruby Gillman

Did this dreamworks movie also bomb hard? 31.156.167.47 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that its reported budget is only $70m and it has made half of that, it will be a loss, but too low to be on this table (needs a loss of $85-90m or more to be here). Masem (t) 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Turning Red and Onward

I’m curious how Turning Red and Onward qualify if they weren’t given full theatrical runs domestically. Turning Red was only released in a number of markets so is there a difference? Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They qualify on the basis of the sources in the article. Editors don't pick and choose what qualifies. It is clearly noted where a film's theatrical revenue was impaired by a multi-platform release, but that ultimately doesn't alter the fact the film lost a lot of money. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Turning Red is a "unique" case as it came down to a hybrid release. In my opinion, it's pretty dubious as the revenue brought in from streaming isn't factored in. [16] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Subscription based streaming doesn't bring in any money, only subscribers. Whatever circumstances it was affected by were not considered "unique" enough for The Numbers to exclude it from its list. The Numbers is either reliable for assessing how much money a film has lost, or it is not, but it's not our place as editors to vet each entry against some arbitrary criteria we have invented. Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You are using WP:SYNTH to come to your own conclusion about streaming revenue. If it means nothing, then why is Screen Rant and Collider citing it? [17], [18]. That being said I don't think it should be excluded, but there should be a footnote that addresses this. There is also a disclaimer at the top of the "Numbers" source: "The data we have is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate but there are gaps and disputed figures. If you have additional information or corrections, please let us know at corrections@the-numbers.com." This means that the totals are not absolute or set in stone. Nobody is trying to "vet each entry", we just have to be careful to present a neutral point of view based on what the sources are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That collider article says the same thing Betty Login said... the films brought subs to the streaming platform, but how those subs are factored into a profit or loss by the distributor is just an unknown. Masem (t) 15:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You say there should be a footnote that addresses this issue, but doesn't the article not already do this? The issue affects several films (not just Turning Red) and is addressed in the last paragraph of the lead. In addition, every film that had a simultaneous streaming release is marked with a §, which in turn is explained in the key at the top. In principle I have no objection to a footnote, but I am struggling to understand what it would add beyond what is already there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Then shouldn't The Irishman be here as well? Grossing between 900k and 8 million against a budget of 159-250 million? 204.126.3.169 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding The Irishman was produced exclusively for Netflix, and had a small theatrical release to qualify for the oscars, so it was never intended to earn back its costs through a theatrical release. However such considerations are beyond the remit of Wikipedia. If reliable sources start to include it in their lists, then we will too. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Morbius

I'm surprised Morbius isn't in here 151.19.253.150 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's an $80 million movie that grossed $160 million. It probably lost money, but nowhere near enough to qualify for this list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep seeing people pop in -as they pass by- to ask if this film or that film should be on the list "'cuz it was really bad and it seems it lost a lot of money". Perhaps a simple (suppressed?) note stating that for a film to be listed here, it needs two things: 1) a reliable source that states the film was a bomb at the box office, and 2) sourcing that states the film lost at least US$90-95M (and this is not determined by just subtracting the budget from the wwbo). Maybe this would help with these questions? Just a thought... - wolf 05:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

But it was seen as one of the worst superhero movies ever, after the flash 2.42.9.98 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A film being considered one of the worst does not have any bearing on whether it financially failed at the box office, or vice versa. Masem (t) 12:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It may have underperformed at the box office, but it almost doubled its budget. It might've lost a couple of million dollars, but I don't consider the movie a box office bomb. I know this is talking about the box office but if you include home video sales, Morbius did eventually become profitable. Dc55555 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is all somewhat moot since a) as you point this list is in regards to performance at the box office, and b) this film isn't even on the list. - wolf 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken - Dreamworks

It's sad in my opinion that this movie is a box office bomb which is only made 30 million, against 70 million movie budget. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

+ It lost around 80 million dollars. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

While that appears to be legit (from the film's page), this list is currently requiring a minimum of $90M loss, since it is impractical to list every box-office bomb in history. Masem (t) 17:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Flash - Warner Bros & DC

The Flash 2023 has lost around almost 200 Million Dollars when the box office made 226.8 Million$ against 220 million$ budget. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussed above at #The Flash. I would be quite surprised if it had lost as much as that. It cost less than the lower-bound estimates for The Lone Ranger and grossed more, so on balance I would say it will probably lose $150 million at most. This is why it is important to wait for figures from a high-quality source. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Catwoman

Are there any sources that say how much money Catwoman lost in its theatrical run? It grossed $82 million globally on a $100 million budget plus marketing money and such. Themostoriginalusernameever (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless we know its marketing budget, the best we can say it is lost at least $18M, which makes it ineligible for this list (below the inclusion threshold) Masem (t) 13:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Catwoman is on the #Trimmed_list above. It almost qualifies for the list, but not quite. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

M:I VII pt1 DR

One source says it may lose $100M. Our cut-off is $90-95M. The film is still in theatres, and when we're talking about potentially less than $10M (or even $5M), it may be prudent to wait a little longer before we call it a "box office bomb"... especially when the sourcing isn't. (jmho) - wolf 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

2nd Version - Little Mermaid Remake

According to my calculations, the movie may lost over 168.3 Million dollars. The movie grew 586.2 million against 250 million. 207.190.21.49 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Your calculations" is original research. Without a sourced budget that likely includes marketing, all we can say is this made a profit and thus not a box office bomb. Masem (t) 21:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Blue Bettle - Warner Bros & DC

The movie grossed 87 Million against 104 million dollars 24.235.144.97 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's only a $17m delta, which is too low to include ($90m or greater) Masem (t) 19:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for box office bombs ?

There are dozens of films on the main article, most of which grossed over their budget, but they still lost money for several reasons, including:

• A) A fraction of the box office gross goes to the film studio. Usually around 50 percent in the USA.
• B) Marketing was not included in the film's budget.
• C) In order to turn a profit, a film should gross at least 2X or 3X its budget.

68.119.148.180 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The criteria—in plain terms—is losing $90 million or more in adjusted dollars (as confirmed by people knowledegable about the production or as projected by analysts). The loss figure must come from a reliable source, although the article uses a template for the inflation adjustment. We as editors don't attempt to second guess the sources, although we make judgment calls over the quality of the source and the age of the source. If there is no good reason to choose one source over another then that is represented by a range. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Mutant Mayhem - Paramount & Nickelodeon

I found out the movie grossed 166 million against 70 million dollars. It needs 210 million to overgrow the box office 24.235.144.97 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is that 210 number coming from? if you are claiming that with marketing and promotional budget should be 3x the production budget, that is original research and absolutely not allowed. We can only go 166 revenue vs 70 cost for a 96M profit. Also the film only just came out, its far too early to consider its approach. Masem (t) 01:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Last Airbender (2010)

This movie won many Razzie Awards and was seen as one of the worst movies ever made. How much did it lose? 2.44.107.173 (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

According to our article, it made >$150M. Bad movies do not necessarily equal box office bombs. Masem (t) 12:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for page to be expanded

Delgo (2008)

Does Delgo (2008) qualify? It was a historic flop, and made only 700000$ out of a 40000000$ budget. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No, even with inflation that's too low to include on this table. Masem (t) 17:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

This page should be edited to make two categories: biggest box office bombs by absolute money lost, and biggest box office bomb relative to its budget.

In relative terms, I'm sure Delgo would qualify. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas (2012)

According to the article, "the film opened to only $9.6 million from 2,008 theaters, an average of $4,787 per theater, finishing second at the U.S. box office. The debut was described as "dreadful" by Box Office Mojo. The film ultimately grossed $27.1 million in the U.S. and $103.4 million internationally for a total of $130.5 million". With a budget of $100–146.7 million, sould it be here?

2.44.107.173 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No , the loss needs to be around $90M or greater to be included. Masem (t) 17:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: split this page into absolute and relative bombs

This page should be edited to make two categories: biggest box office bombs in terms of absolute money (lost more than 90 million dollars accounted for inflation) or biggest box office bombs relative to their budget (lost more than 40% or 50% of their budget, in dollars adjusted for inflation). This problem stems from the fact that in order to classify as biggest box office bombs in absolute terms, a movie has to be high-budget).

I'm sure Delgo, Morbius, Batman and Robin, Welcome to Marwen, Disaster Movie, United Passions, In the Name of the King, Terror on the Prairie, Alone in the Dark, The Haunting of Sharon Tate, and Playmobil the Movie would certainly qualify as some of the greatest box office bombs relative to their budget, even though they wouldn't classify as biggest box office bombs in absolute terms. 2.44.107.173 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally sources consider biggest box office bombs by dollar amount, not relative budget. That would be original research on our side to make such a list. Masem (t) 20:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This article does not consider return on investment, in the same way that List of highest-grossing films does not consider ROI. Simply put the biggest bombs are those films that lost the most money; it is the films that lose $100 million that generate coverage in reliable sources, not some obscure art-house movie that only made 5% of its money back. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article's scope is clearly about "biggest" bombs, a term that generally refers to films that lost the most money in absolute terms. These generate most of the coverage out there that I've seen. The problem with tracking percentages in relation to budget is that there are probably dozens of films (if not hundreds) tied with very high percentages, which would make for a fairly invaluable list. If the coverage for that is out there, and I'm wrong about the number of films that would appear in that list, then perhaps you could explore a separate list article that better defines that scope. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hypnotic (2023) - Ketchup Entertainment

In the box office, it made 12 or 8 million, however, the budget is 65 million 24.235.144.97 (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The lower limit is $90M loss, so this will not be on this list. Masem (t) 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion (2023) - Disney 100

The movie was good overall, the movie made 109 million. However the budget is 150 million dollars 24.235.144.97 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that to be on this list, the minimum to be on this list is $90M loss? You've suggested several films now that are well below that level. Masem (t) 04:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know? I tried to calculate, but you told me that they're wrong! I've tried my best to find any recent year's flops so hard & for so long... & that's the thanks im gonna get... 24.235.144.97 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You calculate using the numbers that are reported. Made 109, budget of 150 . 109 - 150 = 31. Masem (t) 12:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, but are not the losses determined by how much a given film needs to earn to break even? Hence why Transformers: The Last Knight is listed, in spite of doubling it's budget. 204.126.3.169 (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the article thoroughly, look at how losses are determined, and just as importantly; sourced. All the films on the list, and thier losses, are supported by reliable sources, so make sure to also have a look at the sources (aka: references, citations) that are used as well. If you want to know if a film should be added, look and see if there are reliable sources that state it lost at least US$90M at the box office. That's how it's done. - wolf 09:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Fast X - Universal Studios

The film made 714.6 million against 340 million dollars. It "might" lost over round 350-400 million dollars, according to the calculator. 24.235.144.97 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

lather, rinse, repeat...

Look, I don't want to be rude but we don't want to hear any more from you unless i) you have a source saying that a film lost money and ii) the source puts a number on those losses approaching $90 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lolz, that's it Betty... you tell him. But seriously, maybe it's time someone was little more... direct, with this user. (I mean, did they even bother to read this after I took the time to post it, for them?)

Also, maybe we should should consider posting an FAQ at the top of the talk page and bright red notices in the editor window for both the talk and the article, directing all these wayward, would-be contributors to read before editing either page. Otherwise, this is just gonna go on and on and on. - wolf 04:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added an editing note. It may need to be adapted as we go on. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Expendables 4 (2023) - Lionsgate

The Expendables 4 (or Expend4bles, whichever title you prefer) has grossed $49,000,000 on a $100,000,000 budget. That's pretty small in comparison. So much for the wait for the fourth. Overwhelming negative reviews, rise of streaming when COVID-19 hit, changing of the cast (just watch the trailers), and the fact that people stopped caring for the franchise (ever since it was dormant for 9 years) contributed to the film's disastrous opening weekend. Aeiou13579 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That would only be a $51M loss, we are only including losses of $90M or more Masem (t) 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. (: Aeiou13579 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (2023) - Paramount Pictures

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny has the same source for its BO loss of $100 million with Mission: Impossible 7. As much as I hate to admit it, don’t you think M:I 7 should be here, as it was reported by Variety (particularly reliable source), used by Indy 5 for its expected loss numbers, and its $100+ million loss in theaters being above the nominal minimum of $90 million to be on this list? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Our article says Dial of Destiny appeared to break even , even with a $300M budget, while MI7 made at least $250M. Neither firt this list. --Masem (t) 14:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I checked the Variety article, and the $100M loss is very high speculation, not based on any hard numbers, so I've removed Dial of Destiny from the list. Masem (t) 14:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  In addition, that Variety source did not take into account the $71 million in COVID-19 insurance payout that MI7 received, which was announced a month later (see the film's Box office section). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is why it's best not to jump the gun on these things. Without taking the COVID payout into account, the two films had comparable costs, but Mission Impossible grossed $200 million more than Indy (which will translate to $100 million more in revenue) so I never saw their losses as directly comparable anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dial of Destiny grossed about $380M globally [19][20], against an estimated budget of $300M production and $100M advertising. It didn't even get half-way to breaking even! --2804:D4B:7924:6B00:C9D3:5918:2A20:BE61 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Don't know where that $100m is from but even with that, that's only a $20m loss which is too small to include (we need $90m or more) Masem (t) 19:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well to be fair, studios only take in about half of the gross, but the overall point here is that we need something more concrete than the speculation that has been provided so far. We need sources that have provided real expert analysis. Wikipedia editors can't look at the numbers and make assumptions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Where's 2023 Movie Bombs

After i came back after 12 days, I don't see any 2023 box office bombs anymore, what happened to these 2023 movies? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

They will be added when the relevant financial analysis is published. The Numbers only added 2022 films to its "Bomb" list earlier this year, so we may have to wait until next year before 2023 films are added. Please bear in mind there is WP:NODEADLINE. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, it seems like the production houses were more cautious, not backing any big movies that they were not assured of a major return. Even the films that people want to be bombs, like Indiana Jones or the Flash (because they were critically poor films) were far from failures. Masem (t) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

From the lead of The Flash (film): The film has grossed $270.6 million worldwide, becoming one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, with projections of a $200 million loss for Warner Bros.

From the lead of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny: grossed $384 million worldwide, becoming a box office disappointment due to a lack of wide audience appeal and an expensive overall budget, with projections of as much as a $100 million loss for Disney.

From one of Betty Logan's comments above: The criteria—in plain terms—is losing $90 million or more in adjusted dollars (as confirmed by people knowledegable about the production or as projected by analysts).

And from one of Masem's comments above: we are only including losses of $90M or more.

I don't think I need to elaborate... only to say that if these films are not qualified for this list then those articles have substandard leads. Different standards? JM (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable speculation is acceptable on Wikipedia to a certain extent, and those articles are rolling with it as the basis for inclusion. Here in this article, the final numbers matter more than just the label "box-office bomb", since a film's ranking in the list can be impacted by adjustments to those numbers. So in a nutshell, speculation on its own hasn't been enough to get onto this list, though it may be enough for that label to be applied at each film's respective article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Different objectives. This list attempts to quantify how much films have lost, or expect to lose on based on insider information or some form of analytical undertaking. That's a bit different to saying some might lose as much as $100 million. Variety made this claim about the recent Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible films; however, despite costing the same, Mission Impossible grossed $200 million more, so I think it's very unlikely they both lost similar amounts of money. To be fair that might yet turn out to be in the right ballpark for Indian Jones, but at the moment it's educated speculation. It might be okay to add to an article that projected losses range up to $100 million, but we need something a little bit more certain for a list documenting financial losses. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't that mean M:I cost more to promote? Dead Reckoning released its first trailer within a whole year of its release, and in Top Gun: Maverick's run, it was the trailer that was being showcased before Maverick started playing. Jones started its started half-year campaign... half a year before the release. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Mission Impossible cost about $100 million to promote, apparently, and I can't imagine Disney spending significantly less. I don't think it lost money, at least not enough to make this list. I guess we'll find out for sure once Deadline does its annual line-up of box-office bombs. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I would even challenge the claims on those articles about being a big flop as the sources speculated based on the first couple of weeks and not the long run. Masem (t) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Marvels (too soon)

I know it's too soon, but I wonder whether or not The Marvels could end up here. 5.89.210.114 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Depends on how much it cost. Some say it cost just $130M, some say it cost twice as much. Hollywood accounting, you never know... --2804:D4B:7924:6B00:391C:7400:3199:89CE (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not saying which is the correct figure, but the Forbes reported $274.8M would be the official one, since it comes from company filings and they received government subsidy based on that figure. A lower figure could imply an accusation that Disney is committing fraud on the government. Hzh (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if we can use that Forbes article as a ref, it was written by a contributor as opposed to a staff writer. (see WP:RSP) - wolf 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The contributor, Caroline Reid, is an exception. See this recent discussion: WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 81#Budgets revisited / Caroline Reid and Forbes.com --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Caroline Reid almost certainly qualifies under the "subject matter specialist" exception of WP:SPS. She has published a lot of the same material in the high-quality UK paper of record, The Times. Unfortunately, they are behind a paywall, and they don't publish everything. However, her figures can be directly corroborated with Disney's filings to HMRC, if you have the production name for the film. Of those I have÷ been able to check, I have never come across any mistakes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, but maybe a note should be added to the Forbes entry at RSP listing known SMEs such as Reid. Not everyone will root through the WT:Film archives, or any other related talk space histories, to check on the status of a contributor before rejecting a potentially useful Forbes ref. (jmho) - wolf 04:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea worth a suggestion at WT:RSN. Maybe they can create a sub-page or sub-listing of the reliable SMEs, cited by links to past discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Babylon and Amsterdam

Both 2022 movies known for their flops. Should they be on here? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't Babylon here? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The wiki page for Babylon states that "Babylon would need to gross $250 million worldwide in order to break-even". It grossed 63 million, so it would have lost 187 million. 5.89.210.114 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence on the Babylon article states "The site ultimately calculated the film lost the studio $87.4 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.", which falls under the $90M lower level we currently use to keep this list concise.

Amsterdam, however, could likely be added, as there there's an estimated $108M loss. Masem (t) 13:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

As Masem points out, Babylon doesn't qualify. It used to be on the list, but is now on the #Trimmed list above after the threshold was raised. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should make a different section to list more films that are box office bombs. Like separate sections of names of films from A-L and M-Z. Removing some films that are listed as box office bombs kind of affects which notable films that bombed if we trimmed it down. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of films that would qualify as BOB that such a list would be far too long for WP. Hence the reason for tracking those with the largest, adjusted for inflation. There are other sites that people can use to find more such films. Masem (t) 16:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed something that might make my point. There is a split section of episode list in the show Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, which is going to it's 25th season thus far, as you seen seasons-19 and season 20-present. In the former, there is a section where it links to the seasons 20-present as you see here and the latter has a link that leads to seasons 1-19, as it's seen here. I think there's a possibility that something like that could be used to split the number of films that bombed bad in the box office. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the number of episodes is a finite, controlled number. There are bounds to that set, as the show will eventually end. However, films that fail to make their costs will always keep happening, so a full list is potentially unbounded. Thus it makes sense to just limit to around 100 or so entries, focused on the biggest losses. Masem (t) 22:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Having a cut-off around 100 films is no different to how the highest-grossing charts are managed. This is a list of the biggest' box-office bombs; providing a catalog of every film that has bombed would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr Peabody and Sherman and penguins of Madagascar flopped

You need to add them too 2605:B100:524:8339:856D:2B91:5A9B:A3D8 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Both films lost around $57m, in 2014 dollars, which in 2023 dollars would fall short of the $95m min. Level for inclusion. Masem (t) 17:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Wish (Disney)

How much did this movie lose? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Best number for budget was $200m, with ticket sales at $126m, so thats only 74m, less than the minimum to be included. Masem (t) 21:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe studios only get half of the box office revenue, with the other half going to the theaters, so wish would have lost appoximently $137m. Personma (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't consider the split between studios and theaters, unless that is explicitly mentioned part of sourced numbers. Masem (t) 17:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Marvels

The Marvels just grossed around 200 million against a 270 Million dollar budget. How long is it going to be before it's added to this page. What are the most reliable sources estimated the box office loss as of now? UnboundBeartic (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

$70M loss is too low for inclusion. Masem (t) 01:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not True at all, Actually, some of the films on this page have a loss of less then 70M. Plus if you factor in the Break Even Point which is somewhere between 540M and 700M then the loss is somewhere between 330M and 500M. UnboundBeartic (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

All of the films on this list have lost potentially $90 million or more, adjusted to 2022 prices. That is clearly stated in the paragraph preceding the chart. There are some films where the nominal loss is under $70 million (Heaven's Gate, for example) but the adjusted loss in all cases is over $90 million. If it has lost as much money as you say then it will be added to the list in due course, once we get some concrete loss figures. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Its the loss adjusted for inflation, so older films may have losses in their day <$70m but now are over $95m. As the Marvels just happened this year, that $70m is what we work with, and unless a reliable source gives us the actual full production and marketing/distribution budget, we go with the reported production budget numbers. Masem (t) 05:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

They have to make at least twice the budget to Break Even, The Break Even Point is at least $548m So it cost Disney at least $343m. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats original research, however. Not all films require that to break even. Masem (t) 14:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well any big budget films especially one's on Marvel's level do. Plus that's not including marketing which was probably really high. UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait, here's some sources proving my point.

https://collider.com/the-marvels-gross-break-even/#:~:text=A%20budget%20that%20high%2C%20combined,if%20it%27s%20to%20squeeze%20into

https://gamerant.com/the-marvels-box-office-numbers-break-even/ UnboundBeartic (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If The Marvels has indeed lost $343 million, that would mean it has obliterated the record held by Lone Ranger/John Carter by a good $100 million. That would be massive news, and yet I haven't seen news outlet report it. If it is the biggest bomb ever, then it's only a matter of time before that is reported and when it is the film will be added to this list. There's obviously a reason why the likes of Variety//Hollywood Reporter/Deadline are not reporting that type of loss—either it is incorrect, or if it is correct they have not been able to corroborate it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well which of these sources reliable? UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the sources above provide a loss figure of $343 million, just that it would need to earn $700 million to enter profitability. It's also not clear whether that $700 million figure represents the studio revenue figure or if it includes the theaters' share as well. As I said, if the film had indeed lost $343 million (a solid $100 million more than the previous record-holder) then that would be big news, but nobody is reporting losses of that magnitude. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I found another reliable source with a break-even point confirming a lower break even point.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=25fb397638da UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.mensjournal.com/streaming/the-marvels-must-make-440-million-to-break-even# UnboundBeartic (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@UnboundBeartic: Not a comment on this specific discussion, just letting you know that the Forbes source may not necessarily be considered reliable. Per WP:RSP, articles written by Forbes Staff Writers are generally considered reliable, while articles written by "Senior Contributors", such as the one you've linked above, are generally not considered reliable. (FYI) - wolf 08:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See the earlier "The Marvels" section above, but there is exception for Caroline Reid as a reliable source despite being a Forbes contributor. Normally you're right but we do have a case for her as an reputable source. Masem (t) 13:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's like talking to a brick wall. This list documents losses, not break-even points: a break-even point is not representative of the loss if it includes the theaters' share of the gross. And you cannot deduce the loss from the break-even point without knowing how much the film has taken from its ancillary revenue streams. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Not True at all, many of the films on this site take the Break Even Point into account. UnboundBeartic (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There is not a single film here where loss has been determined by us based on a theoretical break-even point. I know that for a fact because I helped build the list and have vetted every single film on it. Every single film on this list is accompanied by a reliable source that states clearly how much money the film has lost. Even if we could do what you are suggesting (which actually is not possible unless you know the theater share, the marketing costs and projected ancillary revenue) we wouldn't be permitted to because it would violate WP:Original research. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Or to stress more, if we have a source that says that (well after the film's theatrical release) the total losses greatly exceeded the budget by a numerical figure that includes the Break Even Point estimates, that's fine. We can use such "original research" when put forth by reliable sources. But we simply cannot make that leap of logic ourselves, even if we know what base industry estimates might be. Masem (t) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 entries on this list were added earlier this year. Any 2023 films that make the cut will most likely be added some time next year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Question, if next year, reliable sources say the film had a box office loss of $500 Million Dollars. How much will it affect this and several other similar pages? UnboundBeartic (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If a source like Variety or Hollywood Reports asserts the Marvels lost $500M, then yes, it would go on this list. What other pages that would be affected we don't know.

I will say that your insistence to get Marvels added is edging on WP:TE, and also along the likes of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but in this case, because you may feel it must be included because it was a poorly reviewed and performing Marvel CU film. That's not how editing on WP works. We have to go by sources. Masem (t) 01:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

box office: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt10676048/

budget: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/09/20/disney-reveals-270-million-bill-for-the-marvels/?sh=591aa68938da

loss on budget alone will be over 100 million not including all of the delays, reshoots, and marketing and promotion. plenty more links for box office, budget showing 100 million+ loss Holydiver82 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources you have provided state the losses incurred. As explained above, we do not add editorial guesswork to the article as it would violate WP:Original research. Films are added to the list as and when a reliable source publishes a credible loss figure. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, as stated in multiple ways throughout this page and its archives, we need to wait until we have a final estimate from a high-quality source that combines all known factors into a grand total calculation. Carolyn Reid's source is a great start, but it is not a final estimate (it was published a couple months prior to the film's release).

• Side note: Please stop breaking up your sentences into individual lines. This can make discussions harder to follow, especially when your response shares the same indentation as other responses above yours. I have fixed it this time, but you should do this moving forward; write in paragraph form. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

https://thedirect.com/article/the-marvels-box-office-mcu

this source puts loss at 255 million Holydiver82 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of TheDirect, and if a film had lost $255 million then top tier media outlets such as Variety, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter would have picked up on the story. Besides, The Direct does not put the loss at $255 million; this is what they actual say: "So, The Marvels appears to have lost Disney and Marvel Studios around $255 million looking exclusively at the figures from its theatrical run. Luckily, much of this revenue ought to be recouped in home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+." I reiterate what I stated below: it helps to read the whole article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

does this list of box office bombs use the box office revenue or all revenue generated by the film? because this article will need a massive update if we are including home entertainment sales and after box office earnings. i was under the impression this box office bomb list was about the box office figures. correct me if i am wrong, so i can go through and start looking at all the films listed as bombs and review the listed losses to see if the sources take into account the total revenue generated years after it left theaters Holydiver82 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Direct is largely a fan site/blog, and it is deemed an unreliable source by the MCU taskforce standards. It is not an official source for box office information, let alone a highly reputable source for its terminology or labeling. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

good to know, thanks Holydiver82 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Going back to your point about post-box office revenue, perhaps Betty Logan can shed some light on that. I realize some sources like Deadline release total revenue that includes post-box office, but other sources don't always specify that's been taken into account. Also considering the term is "box office bomb", should box office revenue be the only factor assessed when making that determination? It's definitely a good question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Profit/loss analysis should make a reasonable attempt to account for revenue from ancillary markets, and costs such as marketing and distribution. This doesn't mean the sources require a full audit of those things, though. If you take The Man from UNCLE discussion below, THR based its analysis on a projection of the box-office gross, and based its analysis on reasonable assumptions about ancillary revenue. Once a film has been in play in all of its major markets for a few weeks, the box-office trajectory is relatively straightforward to project, as most films follow a logarithmic curve (you can see this here). The overseas ratio often stabilises, and the box-office usually accounts for at least half of a film's income these days. Once you reach that point, either the studio or industry writers can porject how much they are likely to lose. Some sources such as THR offer a "snapshot", while others such TheNumbers treat their biggest money-loses chart as a work in progress, updating their projections depending on how strong home video sales are.

Ultimately, films go on making money indefinitely; both Cleopatra and Waterworld move out of bomb territory thanks to licensing of TV rights. A similar thing happened with Justice League which lost a ton in theaters but had surprisingly strong home video sales (which didn't save it from bomb stats, but moved it off this chart). John Carter was especially interesting, because Disney itself took a writedown of $200 million, and TheNumbers projected that the loss ended up being half of that. The porcess for this chart is straightforward: we wait for a reputable source to bring forward some meaningful analysis and we add it to the list if it qualifies; if those numbers change based on future sales then we update accordingly, if the source is available. Due to the inherent uncertainty linked to the figures, it is why this chart is not numbered. It is also why we have more than 100 films on the list, because we actually have more than 100 films competing for the top 100 places, on the basis that some films have loss "ranges".

In recent months, unfortunately, the list has become something of a battleground for editors from rival comic-book camps. For those of us who maintain this article it is just a numerical exercise: we don't actually care which films make the list and which don't; we only care about the quality of the source. The numbers aren't really that important at the end of the day because we are not a financial tracker, they just provide a quantitative criteria for us to approximate list of the biggest bombs of all-time. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent summary. So it seems the viewpoint, then, is that a film that bombs at the box office but makes up the loss in whole or part through post-box-office revenue (i.e. home entertainment sales, streaming, etc.) would have the ability to shake the box-office bomb label. Perhaps that's what trips up editors that assume the label only applies to the theatrical run and the revenue generated from that portion of a film's lifespan. Admittedly, I would have assumed the same. You would think there's a difference between bombing at the box office and bombing overall. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you can probably make a case for the distinction, but most sources don't so we are stuck with what we can source. Ancillary markets are kind of factored in now, and pretty much everything except the tentpoles are not expected to break even until they hit home video. Deadline did a really interesting article on this issue in relation to Waterworld and how even though it has entered profitability it is still thought of as flop. This article has had several titles down the years; around a decade ago it was called List of movies generating losses, which was probably less ambiguous, but a less intuitive name. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, at the very least, it seems the context should probably be scrutinized more closely in sources moving forward (note to self). One source might label a film a box-office bomb based on analysis of its theatrical run, while another shows the film nearly broke even and didn't flop based on ancillary revenue. In this hypothetical, neither is necessarily wrong, and retaining the box-office bomb label in the article could still be reasonably argued (assuming MOS:ACCLAIMED is satisfied). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

do you count home entertainment sales including subsidiaries "paying" each other for streaming rights? If so how do you source that. Because you made a point of putting that in bold in previous replies and it's a significant distinction Holydiver82 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to discuss that side of income. Most actually don't. Its why the COVID-released films like Turning Red are on this list because of the technicality that we can only readily track box office. From a read of how the film went at Disney, it wasn't considered a complete failure, just that Disney isn't going to let us in on how they financially calculated that. So it gets the Asterisk of Doom on this list. Masem (t) 05:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

considering disney can assign any arbitrary amount to "pay" itself for streaming rights of its own films it would be a totally useless and irrelevant figure. its simply a hollywood accounting entry to say one subsidiary of disney "paid" another subsidiary 10 mill, 50 mill, 100 mill for the streaming rights and then call that revenue for the film. no one actually gets any money, its just for accounting purposes and to move losses around different subsidiaries. if this list includes "home entertainment sales - including digital and physical - along with streaming deals like the amount Disney pays itself to put its movies on Disney+ as stated by Betty then it is not actually a list of box office bombs Holydiver82 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

However, in classifying box office bombs, if the media has access to home releases, and that still makes it a significant loss, they will still call it a box office bomb, probably because its theatrical release didn't pan out. It's not up to us to remove entries that have big losses even after home media is accounted for. It does point to the issue that the total profits and total costs of a film are not consistently track to include all facets (international, home and streaming media as profit; marketing and promotion as costs), so we just have to take what reliable sources give us. Masem (t) 20:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The prose makes the scope of the topic very clear: The following is a partial list of films that lost the most money, based on documented losses or estimated by expert analysis of various financial factors such as the production budget, marketing and distribution costs, gross box-office receipts and other ancillary revenues. Most reputable sources do not limit their analysis just to box-office receipts: Deadline doesn't, The Hollywood Reporter doesn't, The Numbers doesn't, which would take out the bulk of the sources we rely on. If you think the article is inappropriately named then you are free to initiate a rename discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Aquaman 2

How much did it lose? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Far far too soon to know. Masem (t) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, do we know yet? 5.89.210.114 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Still far too soon. Wed like be looking to June 2024 before making a determination. Masem (t) 20:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is to discuss potential changes you want to make to the list. Please do not treat it as a help desk or forum. You are encouraged to seek your own answers in reliable sources. If you have a question about something you find in a source, feel free to bring that here. All other general questions, such as asking for a status, may be hidden or removed. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG for more information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 box office bombs

Several 2023 movies need to be added to this list, including The Flash, Wish, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning and The Marvels. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I can pretty easily guess what Masem and Betty Logan's response will be to this: there needs to be reliable sources explicitly telling us the numerical loss. From above, sources for box office losses that they have mentioned include Caroline Reid from Forbes, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. JM (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this list is always a year behind—the 2022 entries were added last year, and the 2023 entries will be added over the course of this year, and this year's flops will be added next year. It's just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Deadline will do it's annual round-up in April in any case, so not much longer to wait. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add again that I think there's also an impression that big budget films that did poorly with audiences and/or critics are necessarily bombs, which is not always true. I know there's a small contingent of the Internet that wants to see the Marvels fail hard (being as female-oriented as it is, and thus in their terms, "woke") but that isn't going to push us any faster to add it to this list without an affirmed lost number. Masem (t) 13:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way marketing costs are typically lumped together with other films at Disney, we'll have no way of knowing for sure how much was spent on marketing for The Marvels unless Disney chooses to reveal that information. But on pre-production and production costs alone, this film is going to lose a massive amount of money. Just taking those two into account, the film is expected to lose at least $200 million per Carolyn Reid's numbers that say the film needed at least $440 million to break even. Not a final estimate yet, just an early one, since marketing and post-production wasn't estimated. As mentioned, we'll need to wait for a list that reveals solid estimates for each film, but don't be surprised to see Marvels at the top of the list. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania: Transformania

This was not released in theatres globally only in China with only $18.5 million on a $75 million budget 205.172.121.203 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to warrant an entry here? Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Even with numbers, the lower bound on this list is around $95m, which the budget doesn't even reach. Masem (t) 19:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Although if they spent enough on marketing then it could end up with a 95m+ loss. But the IP didn't provide a source anyway so it doesn't matter. JM (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

per the wiki page it lists, as a 80 million dollar loss with a worldwide gross of 109 million. however the sourced article that gives that estimated loss of 80 million is using a global gross number of only 72.1 million. and the box office mojo figure which seems to be the standard used on this page to source global gross is giving 110 million global gross

something does not add up with the listed totals for gross and estimated loss and the sources do not support the totals given. the wiki article for the film lists 107 million box office gross Holydiver82 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It helps if you actually read the article fully. At the time the article was written, The Man from UNCLE had grossed $72 million, but The Hollywood Reporter clearly states "Here are five big bombs of the season when accounting for budget, marketing spend and revenue the film can expect to earn in ancillary markets. Grosses are through Sept. 4, with several titles still in release worldwide." In other words, THR based their projected loss on an estimate of total income. Once you are several weeks into a film's run it is fairly straightforward to project a film's box-office trajectory. It is also worth noting that THR gives loss ranges for their estimates in that article, and the loss for The Man from UNCLE is their baseline figure. It is not as though it opened in any large markets after the cut-off date in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

So the source made a guess about the loss based on incomplete information with assumptions about the future. Interesting response to attack me and the defend using projections and incomplete information to put films on the list. Seems odd if the general opinion of the talk page is to wait and be patient to make sure you have the full accounting and the final figures. And in this case have the sole source of the loss be based on one source that was making guesses before the film was out of theatres (the film went on to generate 50% more revenue than reported in the article)

Also odd that your response in no way wants to address that issue or try to confirm or correct the information based on other sources that could have better information. Holydiver82 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: We may want to execute WP:DENY to prevent any further disruption with this user. If that doesn't work, then WP:ANI may be the best route. Mike Allen 21:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Because I posted about incomplete and contradictory information in the article, to which the person who has decided they own this page attacked me accusing me of not reading the source (which I had). Also odd Holydiver82 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82: There are no attacks above. This is now the third time I've had to remind you to focus on content, not the contributor and to assume good faith. If you have a problem with a behavioral issue, take it to WP:ANI. You also need to start writing in paragraph form (I've fixed this, yet again). Patience on these two areas is running very thin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Holydiver82 asked a reasonable question, and got a reasonable answer. The lead makes it clear that the "figures of losses are usually rough estimates at best". The Man from UNCLE is not dealt with any differently to all the other films in the list. We have never asked for "full accounting" for any entry on this page, just a reliably sourced loss figure, from a reputable industry publication. If he has knowledge of alternative loss projections for The Man from UNCLE we are always happy to review them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinocchio (Zemeckis)

unlike the Garrone and Del Toro movies, Zemeckis' Pinocchio is unanimously contidered terrible. Is it enough pf a flop to be on here? 2.37.48.42 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It has zero theatrical run, only been streaming, so I don't think we include streaming-only releases. Also being a critical failure does not equate to box office bomb. Masem (t) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Madame Web

How much money did it lose? Could it be put on this list? 2.37.17.23 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Way way way too soon, wait for it to have been out a month to start looking for reliable sourcing. Masem (t) 00:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Please stop asking for general help on this page, like "How much did a film lose", "Can it be added to the list", etc. You've done this at least 4 times now in recent months. Future posts like this will be immediately removed. This page is not a forum or helpdesk; it should be used for discussing specific improvements to the article based on claims in reliable sources. If you do not have any reliable sources to share, spend your time researching instead of posting here. You can also take your questions to non-Wikipedia platforms such as Reddit, which is better suited for general discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Argylle

Aygylle is officially out of theaters this week and with it having a $200 million budget and only made $94.4 millon, safe to say it should be here BoiLeoKing (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully from the comments in other threads above, you understand that we cannot look at the numbers and guess the amount that a film lost. We know the budget and box office, yes, but there are a lot of other hidden variables, such as tax credits, which may not get reported until the end of the tax filing season. Also in different countries, theaters get a different cut of the revenue, which affects profit. We need a reliable source that reports an estimated loss (at least a range) before it can be added to the list. Until then it sits on a waitlist, and all we can do is say, "Yeah, we know it lost a lot, but we can't say how much exactly." -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Disney's Wish

It ended its box office, making 254 million, against over 200 million dollar budget. Does that count on the list? 24.235.144.97 (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)