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 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)

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)

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)

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)