Talk:Black Adam (film)

Budget

The budget for this film is not reliably sourced. Box office mojo does not list a budget figure.[1] The numbers does not list a budget figure.[2]

Budget figures need to be properly referenced. The reference can sometimes be omitted from the Infobox if it is clearly verified in the article body, but it is far clearer to include the references in the Infobox too.

Digging into the article history, the budget range was added but attributed to Filmik.com[3] which is not a reliable source. The same editor that added it in the first place removed the reference soon after.[4] $185-200 million is a good educated guess, but it is not a reliably sourced in accordance with the standards of an encyclopedia.

This is why I have removed the budget figures from the Infobox for now. Please do not add them without a credible and reliable source (Variety, LA Times, NY Times). -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That'll do.[5] -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Despite {{Infobox film}} clearly saying that editors should not cherry pick budget figures, editors have again cherry picked budget figures and removed the $200 million budget figure stated by Deadline Hollywood. The documentation makes it clear that if reliable sources differ then both figures should be presented as a range. Editors should not assume they know better and exclude reliable sources such as Deadline Hollywood. Variety might be well be more accurate than Deadline but editors cannot know that for sure and should not pretend otherwise. Stop excluding figures without discussion or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Please restore the Deadline reference and $200 million budget figure. -- 109.79.66.165 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It baffles me why so many people continue to vandalize the budget range.[6] (Just one of many examples on this article alone.) and yet another example [7] -- 109.76.193.172 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, this movie did in fact cost money to make? Or was this a charity project with everyone participating for free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.191 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Box office disappointement

Extended two-editor dispute

Editors are using no or only a single source to say this film is a disappointment. Please use more than that. One source isn't enough. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC) @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I made an edit regarding this thread, yet you reverted because you disagree with the reliability of one source, yet I added three sources, two of which you completely ignored, and I cited a fourth one that is already in the article. They supported the edit, yet you completely remove it all, because... why? You can't just add hidden notes and expect to control the article and what editors might add or change. Do you have a consensus somewhere supporting that note? Do you have sources to support your WB "break even" claim? I didn't see anything, so I found one and added it for you. Beyond that, do you have a source to support your WB "making a profit" claim? Do they claim the film "has" made a profit, or "will" make a profit? It's an important disctinction. Regareless, there are sources that state the film has lost money, and is a box office bomb. On the list of bombs, it's currently in the top third of films with the most losses. You need to accept the ref-supported facts and stop trying to gatekeep the page. - wolf 11:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Thewolfchild The Direct source you cite doesn't have any reliability and is just second hand quoting Variety. I apologise for removing Looper, I didn't see that one. It will be restored. Secondly, the Variety source explicitly quotes WB saying that the film will break even with ancillary revenues from home media: When the film was commissioned, the break even was believed to be $450 million, but that figure has dropped given the particularities of the new home entertainment landscape, one in which “Black Adam” has over-performed projections. They also argue that these ancillary revenue streams have grown more profitable with shorter theatrical windows. Thanks to pandemic era concessions, films hit home entertainment platforms in 33 days rather than 75, which reduces the money needed to revive marketing campaigns for a digital launch. With ancillary revenues, sources at Warner Bros. say that the film is poised to get into the black. By all definitions it was a disappointment at the box office. And the profit is going to come only from home media. So why do you keep removing something that is a fact? I'm notifying users, using that hidden note to tell them to not call it a box office disappointment, because the term doesn't fit. Also I did frame it as a request rather than an order. A notification isn't gatekeeping or ownership. If enough users feel I'm wrong so be it. But the content you keep removing was added by another user. So please stop removing something based on what you like. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC) So, as of now, WB is claiming the profits "will" come, not that they "have" come already. It's based on hope, not fact and there is a crystal ball-issue there. But if you to add it, go ahead. Others might challenge, but I won't. That said, you need to accept the fact that the film is currently a financial disappointmemt, that some sources are calling a bomb. That might change, it might not. It's also not a judgememt of the film, just what the box office is right now. (It's a shame that it couldn't play in China, all this would be a non-issue. It's also a shame it went against BP2 after just a few weeks.) But, regardless of the first ref, the edit I made was reasonable, supported and even mentioned the hopes of WB about breaking even. I think you reverted in haste and need to self-revert. And again, I would encourage you to seek consensus for any hidden notes like that. You don't want to stray into wp:own territory. - wolf 11:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC) You added it yourself that WB believes it will break even. When they weren't talking about breaking even at the box office. I suggest a compromise. Let's change it back to box office disappointment (the "box office bomb" term doesn't fit as it isn't highly unprofitable per WB) as you suggested. I'll also remove my note. But adding that Warner Bros believes it will break even should be avoided as it's a prediction and they've acknowledged that it won't break even at the box office, but due to home media. Also needless to say an article lede shouldn't be about predictions. I hope this is acceptable. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Hmm, well see below; Moved to from my tp False accusations...? @Roman Reigns Fanboy: This doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs here. You wrote; "I already restored one of your sources, Looper. The Direct source however isn't reliable. Also I'm already discussing with you on talk page." - You haven't stated just how is the Direct source not reliable, but if you wish to challenge it, the place to do that is right → here. You also keep failing to mention the third source I added, and the fourth source that was already on the page, and that I used again for my edit. So again, you reverted becuase of an issue with a single source, while neglecting the other three. Also, you've just started discussing here, after two reverts and a post to my tp. Meanwhile, I came here and posted right after the first revert. "I can revert you more than once as long as I don't break 3RR and don't intend to get involved in further reverts (I don't)." - Erm, no. 3RR is just the bright line. You can be blocked for edit warring before, if you're being intentionally disruptive, and comments like this won't help. "You're also claiming that other editors disagree when you're the only one disagreeing. At no point did I attempt to impose my own edits, but that changing of the text to "failed to meet expectations" wasn't done by me [8]." - a) You need to provide a diff to support that bit about "other editors". b) You instantly reverting my edit, (twice now!) is you "imposing your own edits". c) well, if some other editor added it, then why do you care if I correct/improve upon it? "I just added some more text to it for clarification and left a note to request editors to not change it to box office bomb/disappointment [9] as the term doesn't fit." - Ok, well, that's not how we edit articles. Just because you don't like the fact the film is currently a box office disappointment, that some sources are even calling a bomb, doesn't mean that you can put hidden notes dictating to every other editor what they can and cannot add to the article. That kind of gatekeeping isn't allowed. (And I take it this means you did not get a consensus to support such a note on the first place, which means if you have re-added it again, it needs to go.) "Therefore it is you who is showing ownership behaviour and going against other editors. I will not be self-reverting for you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)" - Ah, so now you're accusing me of ownership as well? While you were reverting a second time, (and threatening to revert a third time), and trying to fork the discission onto my talk page, I made one edit followed by a single revert, after which I initiated the talk page discussion... and you call that "ownership"...? That doesn't even take into account your hidden note trying to control content via the edit window, the sheer number of edits you've made to the article, or the argumentative approach you seem to take here on the talk page. And now, looking at your big compromise, you've removed everything from my edit, so how's that a compromise? I already said I didn't care about the WB 'break even' bit becuase it was crystal-ballish and likely to be removed anyway. You removed your hidden note because you had to and that leaves the box office bomb bit. That is supported by sourcing and it's on the list of box office bombs, so how can you possibly justify removing it? If at some point sources state the film made a financial turn-around, then maybe it can be removed then, but not now. Like I said, it's sourced and you have no justification for this. - wolf 13:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Discussion of your behaviour is more appropriate on your talk page. You are again baselessly accusing me. At what point did I threaten to revert a third time. I explicitly said I didn't intend to: "I can revert you more than once as long as I don't break 3RR and don't intend to get involved in further reverts (I don't)." That means I can revert you twice but I won't be reverting more than twice. I know very well 3RR is just a bright line. And the other way to violate 3RR is by intending to keep reverting in future even while not doing 3 reverts in 24 hours (and I did say I didn't intend to ever revert again). So please show me where I threatened to revert a third time, or take back your baseless accusation. As far as why The Direct is unreliable? It describes itself as a "a pop culture entertainment news site" but the authors of the articles don't seem to be bonafide journalists with credentials. Also the same website earlier claimed that the movie will likely be profitable with claims that make no sense [10]. Black Adam had an estimated production budget of around $200 million. Considering its nearly $400 million global earnings, even when factoring in marketing costs (typically half of the production cost), the Rock's first DC film is likely profitable for the studio. It seems to be considering that if a film makes more than its total budget at box office it's profitable. There's no other explanation provided. Even though all sources have stated that it failed to break even at box office. I don't care if the film is a box office disappointment and you keep claiming I have some personal feelings involved, when all it boils down to is that secondary sources say something else, but the studio that made the movie says something else. I didn't remove everything from your edit, your Looper source is still there. Also I did add back the box office disappointment term. The note was removed because it was not necessary anymore. That's the simple reason. If editors think there should be a clarification, they can change the wording. It seems to me you want the edit to read exactly as you added it. I already provided you a diff of another editor changing the term from box office bomb to "failing to meet expectations". [11] Either you just ignored it or are pretending that you don't see it. You talk about an argumentative approach, but your own statement starts out in a mocking tone. Also using terms like "big compromise" is just rude. Sorry but I'm not taking this bait, I won't be reverting to restore your edits. If other editors support you then that's fine. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Btw another user removed "box office disappointment" from the article [12] a short while ago. I'm not going to revert it as I've already reverted you twice and I don't intend to edit war over what I believe. I'm okay with other views and this isn't my personal article. It's clear other users don't agree with you on it being a disappointment. So I request that you stop displaying ownership behaviour. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Again you accuse me of "ownership", when I still haven't edited the article since coming to the talk page, seeking reasonable justification to dismiss all three sources in my edit. Such accusations, without proof, may be considered personal attacks. I also don't care about edits made by fly-by ip users, with no explanation, and no sourcing in support. It's a meaningless edit, but it supports your position so of course you're not going to change it, I didn't expect you would. Meanwhile, you've still offerred nothing that shows the Direct source as unreliable, (and again, if you wish to challenge it, go to RSN), and you continue to passively dismiss the other two sources. One you say you've included in your edit as if you're doing me some big favour and the third you don't mention at all. This thread is a trainwreck. I don't think you have any intention of reasonably discussing this content or the sourcing, and instead just keep dragging this on with circular arguments and attacks directed at me. Read WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. Then, perhaps, prove me wrong. - wolf 20:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC) You are showing ownership, you've shown it yourself where in the next paragraph too despite knowing multiple editors don't want it to be labelled as box office disappointment or bomb, you will add it back regardless. Please don't say things like "you don't care". It's clear others don't agree and IP editors aren't always going to know to add a reason. And it's not a reason to edit war. You haven't disproven what I said about The Direct at all, can you please do that if you think it's reliable? You tell me to prove you wrong when you're showing the exact behaviour I'm accusing you of. You're also showing rude bebaviour, by saying things like "doing you a big favour" when I explicitly added your source back because I had made a mistake and I was simply stating that I made a mistake. If you continue to edit war and be rude, I'll have to complain you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Your statemnt It's a shame that it couldn't play in China, all this would be a non-issue. It's also a shame it went against BP2 after just a few weeks. also makes me suspect that your edits are personally biased. And that will be factored in the complaint if one is made. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC) "Your statemnt[sic] ... also makes me suspect that your edits are personally biased. And that will be factored in the complaint if one is made." - you... have... got to be kidding. (Please tell me your joking.) Anyway, it doesn't matter if users don't want something in an article - if it doesn't violate our guidelines, and is standard information for that article's subject, (eg: found in similar articles), and is supported by reliable sources, then "I don't like it" is not a justifiable reason to omit. There are plenty of BLPs with personal or controversial content that the BLP's fanbase would like to remove (and often try to), but that alone is not a reason to remove relevant, sourced content. And just becuase you don't like it, adding relevant, sourced content is not "page ownership". In fact, trying to repeatedly remove relevant, sourced content, that you don't like, is almost the definition of page ownership. (It's literally in the opening "nutshell" explanation of WP:OWN: "...others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." But I strongly suspect this won't get through either. So sure, go post your complaint. I think we're done here. - wolf 18:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I guess we're not done. "The very same source you used had Warner Bros contradict the claim that it will be a box office bomb." - Which source is that? I initally used four. I have since noted another three. You will need to be specific (source and quotes). "Also Deadline is disputing Variety's claims too" - Is that the article that the Rock and all the fans are excited about because it claims that the film might profit in the future from streaming and tv fees? First off, great! I hope it does. But that doesn't change the fact that this film is considered by multiple sources to be a bomb at the box office (or "flop", or "bust", etc.), and that is what we are talking about here; this film's performance at the cinema box office. "I also mentioned to you how one of the sources you use (The Direct) has no author with credible journalistic credentials, I couldn't find any." - And I'm absolutely shocked at that. Meanwhile, I simply clicked on their "About" page where I found this statement: "About The Direct" The Direct is a leading independent entertainment news outlet covering the MCU, Marvel, superheroes, Star Wars, DC movies, gaming and more. The Direct reaches a large audience of over 4 million monthly unique visitors on thedirect.com, over 800,000 followers on Twitter, and over 7 million people reached monthly on Facebook. Started in 2017 by Editor in Chief Brian Grodzki as @MCU_Direct on Twitter, The Direct is now comprised of a team of passionate young journalists and content creators from across the globe, including the United States, Canada, Philippines, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. The Direct creates informative articles with beautiful visuals that thoroughly covers all things pop culture. Our coverage includes exclusive scoops, breaking news, celebrity interviews, reviews, and comprehensive analysis from our team of entertainment experts. This is followed by a staff listing of more than two dozen people, including the CEO, CTO, Managing Editor, writers, podcast producers, etc., all with individual bio's. There is a "Press kit" page, that includes "key stats", such as; 8 million unique monthly users, 13 million monthly page views, 1 million Twitter followers and 10 million monthly Facebook reach. They have links for "Policy", "Terms & Conditions", "Corrections Policy", "Ethics Policy" and "Cookie Policy". They also have a "Contact us" page with email addresses, a physical address (that isn't a p.o. box) and a contact for advertisers. As I've said, if you still wish to contest this source, RSN is the place. (Actually, nevermind, I'll request they vet them myself.) But while we're on the subject of sources, do you wish to challenge the reliability of the other three sources I used? Or the additonal three sources I've noted since? (I keep asking and you keep refusing to answer... what's up with that?) "You ignored it and still keep claiming I provided no reason as to why it's unreliable." - Because you haven't. (And which is it? I ignored it or I kept responding about it?) "You're also falsely accusing me of gatekeeping with a note when all my note did was politely request people not to call it a "bomb" as the term didn't fit or so I thought." - Which is not allowed, and since you admit you did it, it was hardly false of me to accuse of doing so. "Also you haven't answered why you thought it was okay to revert other editors and impose your own edits." - Wait... why does that sound familar? Right, that's what I said to you earler! But you're not seriously asking this, are you? I made one edit. You removed it. I then made one revert to re-add my edit because I thought your removal wasn't justified. (And still don't.) Along with a minor edit I made last month (removing a unused ref that created an error flag), those are the only three edits I've made to this article... period! I haven't reverted "other editors" (plural?!) nor have I "imposed my own edits". That what you do, wilfully and wantonly, without regard for policy or others input, as many of your 300+ edits to this article (including dozens of reverts) will attest. "You also behaved rudely to me, example calling my attempt at compromise a "big compromise"..." - Rude? No, but there may have been a little sarcasm in response to what you think is a "compromise" (which was really; "I get the edit I want, but we'll use one of your sources to support it".) "...starting replies in mocking tone with "Hmm, well see below"..." - No, that's just a lead off comment, no mocking intended. "...you dismiss me correcting my mistake regarding removing a source as "if you're doing me some big favour" in the above section "Box office disappointment".}}" (this section) Erm, not sure what you're referring to there. The "big favour" quote in the diff you provided refers to you using my source in your edit, (as mentioned above.) "I accused you of ownership behaviour due to how you have brhaved." -Yes you have, numerous times now. One problem is that I haven't exhihibted any ownership-type behaviour over this article. Another problem is depite the fact that I repeatedly stated this, and explained how your accusation both falls short, as is considered a personal attack (like all false accusations of serious policy violation), you continue to include the accusations in every comment you make. Either you don't care in the slightest about the NPA policy, or there is a CIR issue here. "User:GoneIn60 I hope you take a note of this because Thewolfchild's behaviour has been uncivil. This might also need admin intervention.". Well, along with the fact that you've pinged them and they volunteered a 3O, I'd say it's likely they're paying attention. As for "admin intervention", you already threatened that once, and already said go for it. If you're gonna file, just get to it already. (Make sure you read WP:BOOMERANG first., because your behaviour, all of it, will be closely examined as well, and your hands are not as clean as you try to make them out to be.) Your comment and my response are in this this thread, where they arguably belong, instead of the thread below. There is already a lengthy back-and-forth between us, no need for it to spill into another thread. I started the next thread for that very reason, so that it could be focused more on the article's content regarding box office performance, instead if a single content dispute. I'm sure other editors will appreciate not having to wade through our posts there as well. - wolf 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC) This very same combative attitude of yours by saying things like "I guess we're not done" is what causing the problem. But you keep accusing me. First of all please do not move my posts, especially where I address your behaviour to other users. Any other such future edits would be instantly reverted and an ANI complaint. I will be reverting your move. With the hositility you keep showing, it's unlikely most admins if any will take your side. Which source is that? I initally used four. I have since noted another three. You will need to be specific (source and quotes).: You added the sources yourself, including the contradiction by Warner Bros here [13], so it's expected for you to know what source you are using says what. It's this one: [14] you used yourself. Regarding Direct's "About" page. You are taking something a source claims itself to be at face value. How does that make a source reliable? WP:RELIABILITY is proven by track record and citations by other secondary reliable sources. Because you haven't. (And which is it? I ignored it or I kept responding about it?) - So present me their experiences. Where they worked or their education. You should look at their LinkedIn profiles instead. For example the author of this "The Direct" article [15], Klein Felt, is listed as a former producer and hoster for radio shows and freelance writer for sites like MobileSyrup and TheDirect since 2021. Before that he worked at a yogurt company. So I don't see what you think is reliable. Also his article is just reporting Variety's info second hand so I don't see the point. Another of your sources ComicBook I hadn't noticed earlier. I apologise for that. While not unreliable, it isn't really needed considering it's also quoting the same Variety source. I don't see a point in adding it and stuffing the article with needless sources. If you feel like restoring it, please go ahead. I won't be opposing it, but I don't see a point in it either. However if you do want me to, I'm willing to add it back. I don't want to edit war. Which is not allowed, and since you admit you did it, it was hardly false of me to accuse of doing so. Again you falsely accused me over a note that politely requests instead of ordering people because I thought it would be inappropriate considering the studio contradicted their claim. [16] But in reality it just seems you accused me because I reverted your edit and didn't agree with them. I said to you] earler! But you're not seriously asking this, are you? I made one edit. You removed it. I then made one revert to re-add my edit because I thought your removal wasn't justified. I am actually asking because it's not justified for you to edit war even if you think you're correct. See WP:EDITWAR which says in the first para: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. You criticised me for reverting even though I said I won't revert you or anyone regarding that issue of whether it's a disappointment or not on the article lede again [17], I recognised it would be unwise to dispute and edit war with multiple editirs. Yet you are fully willing to revert even other editors yourself like you said here [18]. So I don't see how you are framing yourself as innocent. I didn't say I haven't reverted before, and I have edit warded sometimes in past when I was new. But I try to avoid edit wars over the same issues now unlike what you are doing. My reverts aren't any violation nor are going to excuse your intent or behaviour at all. And GoneIn60 had to tell you to not revert in order to make you stop as well as why you couldn't. [19] That what you do, wilfully and wantonly, without regard for policy or others input, as many of your 300+ edits to this article (including dozens of reverts) will attest. You have shown nothing except my edits including some which are reverts. That's not "wilfully and wantonly". You will need to prove that I'm edit warring. Reverting once or two times and then entirely stopping isn't an edit war. So again you're making false accusations. Rude? No, but there may have been a little sarcasm in response to what you think is a "compromise" (which was really; "I get the edit I want, but we'll use one of your sources to support it".) Sarcasm does count as uncivility when directed at other editors and yours seem to be for insulting. Your edits fall under "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment" per WP:CIVIL. You started out with making assumptions and accusing me right of the gate instead of having any spirit to cooperate [20]. No, that's just a lead off comment, no mocking intended. We already know you're addressing my point and adding statements. And starting off with "Hmm well see below" instead of something one would expect in a normal conversation, this isn't a civil comment. Further you... have... got to be kidding. (Please tell me your joking.) here which again fails the criteria of "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment". Yes you have, numerous times now. One problem is that I haven't exhihibted any ownership-type behaviour over this article. You did show it here claiming no one had offered any reasonable response [21], despite me already offering one and you being aware of it [22]. The studio itself contradicts the claim, so we'll just be adding claims of those not even involved in the film. As for "admin intervention", you already threatened that once, and already said go for it. If you're gonna file, just get to it already. (Make sure you read WP:BOOMERANG first., because your behaviour, all of it, will be closely examined as well, and your hands are not as clean as you try to make them out to be.) Again you're being rude. I'm hoping you can see how you're behaving is incorrect before I have to complain. It's better to solve it beforehand, goading me isn't gongg to make me do it. I'm aware of BOOMERANG but your behaviour has been rude here. And ownership behaviour explicitly threatening to revert multiple users. There's no way you're getting off. I will be leaving you a warning template on your talk page, and if you continue flagrantly violating the policies, then I'll have no choice but to complain. Your own statement Is that the article that the Rock and all the fans are excited about because it claims that the film might profit in the future from streaming and tv fees? sounds clearly an indication of personal bias against the film too. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC) After seeing THR's report that a sequel is unlikely and even sources who say it'll make a profit that it'll make profit due to ancillary home media (PVOD/streaming/discs etc), I've decided to self-revert [23]. It does seem every source agrees it won't break even at the box office at all. And WB doesn't consider anymore potential money enough for a sequel. So I don't see a point in disputing any longer. If someone thinks otherwise and wants to revert me or make any other changes to what I added, please feel free. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC) That said TheWolfchild, you might want to reconsider viewing The Direct as reliable, as it based its claim of a "reported" Hawkman spinoff [24] on a deleted Deadline para (it even explicitly says that part was deleted) from its article about the film profits which incorrectly called it a Hawkeye spinoff [25]. The same para had also claimed a Black Adam sequel was in development. Obviously that removal is no coincidence given THR published the article dismissing claims about a sequel and Dwayne Johnson's attempts at involving himself with DC causing friction. Regardless a site using a deleted claim (that hasn't even been confirmed by the studio itself) to claim something's reportedly in development isn't a reliable source. Please avoid using it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Well, after reading this, and this post to my tp, I guess we call the content dispute resolved. I'm hoping that also means we can suspend any further debate regarding various behavioural accusations. As for The Direct, I asked for a review of that site last night, so I'll wait on that. The only other thing I'll add is, if I have a bias here, it's for this movie. I like superhero films, and the Rock, but we can't let our likes or dislikes of subjects prevent us from updating articles with relevant, sourced content, whether it's flattering to the subject or otherwise. (Something that many of our itinerant IP friends here are still struggling with). - wolf 21:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sequel...?

Considering what the "future" section currently states about a sequel, what, if anything, should be stated in the lead? - wolf 09:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing until a sequel is in production (not just planning one). Mike Allen 17:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Around the time I posted this, the last sentence in the lead stated "A sequel is in development.". Other than that bit in the "Future" section that "...WBD was still in talks for a sequel.", the info info in the article doesn't really look all that promising for a sequel at this point, so I didn't think that unsupported comment in the lead was all that accurate. (Hence this thread.) Thanks for the replies. - wolf 03:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, that claim about WBD still being in talk for a sequel has wrongly been made into a contradiction of THR's report. That Deadline report which quotes Joe Singer about sequel talks [26] was published earlier than THR's report [27]. Check the timestamps. After the publication of THR's report which states a Black Adam sequel is unlikely, Deadline removed claims of Black Adam 2 and Hawkman spinoff being in development [28], though it retains Singer's comments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, as far as making another theatrical sequel with $150M budget + marketing, that seem very unlikely right now, (but who knows...?) That said, if WB/DC is looking to create another slate of interconnected films, (bringing Cavill back, + the cameo, apparently bringing Affleck back, etc.), then I'm sure they'll want to make the The Rock's Black Adam a part of that. Perhaps placing him as a non-lead in another DC film, or in a HBO/Max series... that's a possibility. Kinda' like how the MCU kept Ruffalo's Hulk around without him having his own film (tho' for different reasons). The point of this is to keep an eye out for any RS mention of further Rock participation in the new DCCU to keep this page up to date. - wolf 06:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the "major shakeups" are happening, putting all sequels into doubt at this point. Gunn recently confirmed that Superman films are getting rebooted. No Cavill. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Damn. So he left The Witcher for nuthin'. - wolf 07:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

It needs to be upgraded because Black Adam is nominated and the people deserve to know that this movie was great as well, despite the box office bomb 2A02:214A:8114:A400:5507:AB0C:9F5D:FC7A (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"mostly negative reviews" claim

Nyxaros, I see in your recent edit, you combined some elements and removed opposing claims, choosing "negative" as the consensus in sources. However, we know that MetaCritic has classified the overall reception as "average or mixed". There are also quite a few sources out there that counter the ones listed in the article:

1. Box Office Bust: 'Black Adam' Faces Theatrical Losses – Variety (December 5, 2022)
2. R-Rated DC Scenes We Never Got To See In The Original Cut – Slashfilm (June 26, 2023)
3. 'Black Adam' Weekend Box Office Powers Past Expectations With $67 Million – Collider (October 23, 2022)
4. Black Adam RT Audience Score Best For DC Movies Since Nolan's Trilogy – Screen Rant (October 23, 2022)
5. The Rock Comments on Black Adam's Mixed Reviews... – MovieWeb (March 13, 2023)
6. 'Black Adam' Gives Dwayne Johnson His Biggest Domestic Box Office Opening as a Leading Man – People (October 24, 2022)
7. Black Adam Rock Bottoms at the Box Office – Gizmodo (December 6, 2022)

All of these list the overall reception as mixed, and one of those is a more recent publication from Variety, which interestingly is also used to also support "negative" in an earlier publication. I don't think we should be labeling the overall critical consensus on Wikipedia when it has not been clearly labeled in sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you listing sources here that supposedly counter claim the sources I added but are not mentioned in the article? Go add them to the page, some of which mention early mixed reviews. We do not use Metacritic's classification only when multiple sources say otherwise. ภץאคгöร 06:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Figured we'd discuss here first. Quite a few of the sources I listed were published over a month after the film's release, and in some cases more than 5 months later. Instead of bombarding the article with conflicting sources, I think it would be better to remove the summary statement altogether. Just let the primary aggregators, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, speak for themselves. Otherwise, you're going to have statements like:

"According to Rebecca Rubin at Variety, overall reception was mixed, but her colleague J. Kim Murphy described the film as drawing negative reviews."

Conflicting statements like that would begin to litter the article, unless you have a better idea. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think stating the film was "not well-received" or "critically unsuccessful" could be used and the note could describe "mixed" and "negative" reception from sources, maybe starting with "Some publications described the critical response as "mixed", while others [...]". ภץאคгöร 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad we could reach some common ground! I agree with "not well received" along with a description in the {{efn}} that covers both "mixed" and "negative". --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Made the changes. Trimmed down the number of sources to 4 each, which should be sufficient. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"box-office bomb" is neither cited nor supported

This violates WP:NOR and is evidence of a hostile bias towards the film and possibly also Dwayne Johnson and/or film makers of color in mainstream Hollywood productions, depending on how the context is interpreted. It should be corrected or removed and that rest of the article should be policed for more evidence of original research and/or further negativity bias. 74.104.130.145 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Box-office bomb article describes it as "a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run."

In Black Adam (film)#Box office, the third paragraph states "Several publications described the film as a box office bomb..." with five references:

• THR wrote Black Adam "will be lucky to break even".
• Variety calls it a "Box Office Bust"
• Forbes says the film "is still shy of the numbers it needed to overcome hefty production costs."
• Looper literally says "it's still a box office bomb"
• ComicBook writes "it could lose $50 million to $100 million in its theatrical run."

If you have updated references demonstrating it is NOT a box office bomb, feel free to post them here or be bold and update the article accordingly. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:ACCLAIMED, phrases such as "box-office bomb" are loaded terms which have become overly used and excessive to the point they are not as descriptive. Only Looper explicitly calls it such while the other refs are used to imply it, though Looper is not a high-quality source nor an expert in BO analysis. Per the MOS: "Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Be wary of source headlines, which are not a reliable source, that use these terms or superlatives, and are then not backed up by the body of the source." This article lacks such multiple high-quality sources calling it a bomb but highlights the break even point and other financial data, so those should be what is used. This has been an issue across these superhero articles lately, and I and others have started to deal with them at the likes of The Flash (film) and The Marvels. I'm planning on rummaging through this article when I have time to to clean it up and review the sourcing. Remember, all statements need to be sourced, especially labels we use on films. We can't interpret a label or phrasing like this that actually mitigates what is actually going on with a film's performance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sabbac/Ishmael?

Should the references to Sabbac later in the article be changed to Ishmael? I mean they're technically one and the same (i.e. Sabbac is Ishmael's villain name). Visokor (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)