Jump to content

Talk:Dark Phoenix (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Kinberg as director

I've looked through all of our sources and none of them confirms Kinberg as director... they all say that he is in talks, or that it's possible, and even Kinberg said it was possible in an interview for the Logan press junket. But we haven't found anything confirming it, unless I missed something. I'm going to remove him as director for now, but if we find a source, feel free to cite and re-add it. -RM (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Filming has begun

@AlexTheWhovian and Favre1fan93: would one of you guys be able to move this draft to the mainspace? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- AlexTW 00:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Alex! - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Cast order

Somebody keeps insisting on changing the cast order without discussing it and without providing a source for the new order. I know this is unlikely to stop that, but if you are reading this and it is you who keeps doing it, please discuss your reasoning here rather than continuing to edit war. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 August 2017

The vandalism from this revision needs to be reverted. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Adam, why are we not supposed to write "Ororo Munroe / Storm"? Wasn't her real name revealed in Apocalypse, which this is a sequel to? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it is not widely used, similar to Rogue's real name in the original films, in which case it would be better to have a source that it is used in the film. Similar to Xavier, who doesn't really go by "Professor X" in the films so even if it has been used previously it is better to have a source for this film in particular. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Supersonic speed?

From where is it inferred that Quicksilver's speed is "supersonic"? (It's not on the linked source). It seems to me a weak, generic term for someone who's shown to witness the universe almost stuck in time when he uses his power, which is something that pilots on supersonic jets certainly don't experience. And I don't think we ever heard a sonic boom from a bystander's point of view when he uses the power. If the adjective "supersonic" was meant merely as a way to convey "extremely high speed", it is too specific not to ring false. Kumagoro-42 22:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative to suggest? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain is not playing Lilandra

Jessica Chastain has confirmed that she will not playing Lilandra.

Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJMzK54WsAEYKMt.jpg

It's from Chastain's Instagram.

She would play Dark Phoenix or adult Jean Grey? --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It is unclear exactly what happened here, and the comment was quickly deleted. We should wait until we get a clearer source. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
But sources reflects her words.OscarFercho (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

https://nerdist.com/jessica-chastain-lilandra-x-men-dark-phoenix-val-cooper-amelia-voght/ http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/09/08/x-men-dark-phoenix-jessica-chastain-not-lilandra/ http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/x-men/news/a837757/jessica-chastain-x-men-dark-phoenix-fan-theory-denies-playing-lilandra/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.189.82 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

@Jockzain: You need to STOP edit warring and look at what you are doing. The version that you are insisting on makes lots of changes, and only one of them is (sort of) sourced. What is your justification for the unsourced cast and crew members added, or the unsourced cast order change? - adamstom97 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for it, I make the mistake about it and I am reverting it.--Jockzain (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Future

The section is being rewritten several times. Let's try to decide something here. Some points.

  • Disney has bought the film rights for the X-Men, but that doesn't mean that they will keep the X-Men film series as is, or keep up working on the films planned by Fox. They can also reboot the whole series. The X-Men will join the MCU, but they may not be those X-Men, same as Spider-Man is not the one from the Raimi or Webb films. Right now, we don't know (Disney has not clarified their plans either way), and there is speculation on this point. However, there is a point that is not speculation: this whole thing adds an uncertainty to the sequels of this film that did not exist before. Before this deal, the chances of a sequel depended just of the standard film industry conditions.
  • Within this context, it is important to mention the specific status of this film: although Disney and Fox got to a deal, it has not been implemented yet, and neither by November 2018. In the meantime, Fox assets (such as the X-Men franchise and this film) still belong to Fox. It is not enough to simply say that it's a film "distributed by 20th Century Fox". Lots of casual readers will check this article (specially when the release date gets closer) and ask about this, ignoring about the fine print of the deal.
  • Also related to this: even if Disney comes today and announce that they will reboot the X-Men franchise, this specific film will be released, as it will still be a Fox film. Of course, Disney and Fox may get to a second deal to avoid releasing it, but that would be another step.
  • Many IPs pointed that this would be the last film of the series. The likely thing meant when they say that is that, although it would not be the last X-Men related film by Fox, it would be the last starred by the titular team of X-Men. The other upcoming films are Deadpool 2, New Mutants, Gambit, perhaps X-Force and X-23, but that's it: there are no specific plans for a film titled "X-Men" past this one. Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
All we know is that something may happen in the future, which may be relevant to this article. That is not something we should be emphasizing in a Wikipedia article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is "Dark Phoenix" intended to start a new trilogy?

In the introduction of the article and in the "future" section, it notes that "Kinberg said in May 2016 that he hoped Dark Phoenix would be the first in a new trilogy of films". However, reading the article cited in that entry, there is no mention of the Dark Phoenix film at all; the article focuses on Apocalypse and notes that if feels like the end of an origin trilogy (FC, DOFP, APOC) for the characters. The only mentions of a fourth film come in Kinberg hoping that the actors return if a fourth film is made.

There is no mention of DP starting a new trilogy, or DP at all. Just that APOC felt like the end of an origin trilogy. I suggest that this is removed from the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Kinberg says "the end of one trilogy and an origin story for these new characters" (emphasis mine), which means that there must be another trilogy to come after that end, or at least that is what Kinberg intended at that point. Otherwsie he would have said "the end of the trilogy" or "the end of a trilogy". - adamstom97 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Olivia Munn

@Big Al-MuSti: I suggest you self revert and discuss instead of edit warring to keep your WP:BOLD change. It is clearly sourced in the article that Munn is returning, as she states in the interview that she has to be vague about whether she is coming back or not but then goes on to talk about "working with Simon, as a director". And no, this is not a reference to Apocalypse as Kinberg did not direct that film. This film is his directorial debut. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of sourced content

@Big Al-MuSti: You have started an edit war, you have ignored the message left at your talk page, and you continue to WP:VANDALise the page. "Fake news" is not a valid or appropriate explanation for why you can delete content from an article that you don't like. Please restore the article content and then discuss here why you believe it should be removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it 3 months of continuous reshoots? Like week to week? Or is it a waiting on schedules to align and work while they can over the course of 3 months? 3 continuous months is a whole movie ffs. It's pure speculation. --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Pure speculation is what you are doing right there, trying to make up your own facts. The information that you removed was that "the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that they could take up to three months to complete", which is an undeniable fact. The head of that group literally said this is the case. We are in no way saying that there are going to be three months of reshoots, in fact we actually say that there are only going to be a couple of weeks of them. All we are saying by including this line is that the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believes that the reshoots are going to take place over three months. Nothing more than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that is it 3 months of continuous reshoots? Like week to week? Or is it a waiting on schedules to align and work while they can over the course of 3 months? It's pure speculation. And the source is not in english. --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what speculation means. "the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that they could take up to three months to complete" is a simple fact that does not contradict any of the other information in the article, and the only reason that you have given for removing it is that you WP:DONTLIKEIT which is not good enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's what the source says: Au départ, X-Men pensait devoir passer deux semaines à Montréal pour terminer le film tourné dans la métropole l'été dernier. Or, l'équipe de X-Men tournera plutôt trois mois.
If my French is up to snuff, this can be translated as: At first, X-Men had thought they would have to spend two weeks in Montreal to finish the film shot in the city last summer. However, the X-Men crew will instead shoot for three months.
That seems like a pretty clear corroboration from the source. The only thing I can think of that might warrant not including this information is that we shouldn't be reporting on the future. But if that were the way we followed that policy, we couldn't cover movies until they were finished.
Help us out, here Big Al-MuSti. Is it the specific wording that you have a problem with? Something with the source? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the article this info is based on, this is obviously based on scheduling. It was already revealed a month or so ago that Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy won't be available to shoot their scenes until some time in October after they wrap shooting on It Chapter 2. The actual reshoot scenes themselves are smaller.

But let us ignore all those facts and slip into a state of delirium, right Adamstom97? --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That answer made no sense at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It made sense to me. It sounds like the information is out of date. Big Al-MuSti, can you provide a source that corroborates this update? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not out of date, and nothing about their comment suggests that they believe this is the problem. They have yet to provide a coherent reason for why we should not be saying what the Quebec Film and Television Bureau has been told about the production. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Since my question was directed at Big Al-MuSti, I'd rather wait for him to respond than let you speak for him. Letting people speak for themselves is generally good manners, especially in a case like this where you are admittedly confused by his comment. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to be so patronising. I did not speak for anyone else, I responded to your comment with my own thoughts which is what this talk page is for. But since you have brought it up, I might as well go ahead and do it so you have something to complain about. Your welcome in advance.
Shortly after the source that is being discussed came out, saying that reshoots would take place over three months, many websites began making a big deal about how this looks (lots of reshoots is generally considered to be a bad thing, even though that is not necessarily the case). A follow-up article from a different website came out saying that there would only be a couple of weeks of reshoots so everyone should stop panicking, and that is when I saw both sources and went ahead and added them to the page. Looking at the facts of each, it sounds like there is set to be a couple weeks-worth of reshoots, but the Quebec Film and Television Bureau has been told that they will take place over three months, which would indicate that there is not that many reshoots required but due to scheduling it could take a little while to get them done. Regardless, the two sources do not actually contradict each other as one is talking about how many reshoots are required and one is saying how long it is expected to get them all done. Because of that, they should both be included until we get any further clarifications. The issue arose, and this is where I am going to attempt to speak for Big Al-MuSti, when a good-faith editor misinterpreted my addition as saying that there were going to be three months-worth of reshoots. That obviously isn't what I added which is why I am assuming that they just didn't quite understand it. They set about removing that information and keeping it removed because they thought someone was adding a lie that had already been refuted, but if they actually look at what it says they will know that I agree with what they are saying and have in fact not added what they think I added. Hopefully this clears up this misunderstanding, and they can realise that I am not trying to add content that was directly refuted in the Collider report. I am in fact adding an additional fact that has not been refuted yet and so should not be blindly deleted at this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reshoot schedule is based on actor availability. Articles about reshoots aren't specifying the number of days of actual shooting, merely the scheduled time period. An example is an article about one film stating that several weeks of reshoots would take place. Later on it was shown that the actual actor involved was only available one day each week to shoot out of his schedule. That doesn't mean he was shooting for 3 or so weeks straight.

None of this is new info. We knew they were starting reshoots this month. It was also revealed a while back that 2 actors won't be available for reshoots until 2 months later. Now, common sense suggest that the span of time for reshoots would stretch around a 3 month period. I already knew this a month or so ago.

@Aeusoes1 Here: http://collider.com/x-men-dark-phoenix-new-mutants-release-date-delay-explained

"But given the in-demand nature of this A-list cast, getting all the necessary cast members assembled for reshoots is no easy task. The earliest availability for everyone to return was August or September of this year, which would leave just a couple of months to complete necessary visual effects for the new scenes. That wasn’t enough time, and so Fox decided to push Dark Phoenix’s release date to February to give everyone the time necessary to complete the needed additional photography and post-production on said sequences." --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, well this seems like a simple fix then. Rather than remove the content, we just need to reword it. The objectionable wording is "though the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that they could take up to three months to complete." I can see how someone might misinterpret that as meaning that it would involve three months of continuous shooting. How about:
"though the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that these reshoots would take up to three months to complete, due to scheduling conflicts among the cast members." — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
We are assuming that is the case, but to actually say it like that would be OR. We could try something like "though the Quebec Film and Television Bureau believed that they could take place over a longer period of time, up to three monthd." - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, that still sounds like it could be continuous. Why would mentioning scheduling conflicts be original research? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Because the source does not say why it could take that long, and if we say it is because a different source says scheduling conflicts then that is us putting the two together to form a new idea. That goes against the very definition of WP:SYNTH, a specific section of WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but this source, which makes it clear that it is responding to the French-language article quoted above, highlights scheduling conflicts from the principles as the reason for a small amount of reshoots are projected to take three months. If there's any synthesizing done, it's in this source. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I had not interpreted that source in that way. But it does sound like a good compromise to me: use your suggested wording, and both sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The official title is "Dark Phoenix"

The official title is "Dark Phoenix", not "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Al-MuSti (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Says who? --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Source Hutch Parker (Producer): https://www.instagram.com/p/BaRhTnmDIvr/?taken-by=hutch.parker --Big Al-MuSti (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The recent Cinema Con presentation of Fox further proved this. Again whoever in this site decided to include X-Men in the title, when clearly Fox just called it as Dark Phoenix when they announced the release date!Move this article to its official film title, not the Internet's assumption of the film title. Hotwiki (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I see where you got this info from, but I think it can't be used per WP:FRUIT. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the source is probably alright, even if it isn't the most ideal. My issue still at the moment is that this just confirms what is in the logo, not necessarily the actual titles, and we still have a lot of reliable sources using "X-Men" in the title. I think we need a bit more before we make the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem here is Fox never officially called this as "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Wikipedia (whoever were editing this) and other sites decided to call as "X-Men: Dark Phoenix" assuming the word X-Men is gonna be part of the title, which is against Wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Clearly Fox just titled it as "Dark Phoenix" when the November 2018 release date was announced, and this is another confirmation from Fox that the title is indeed Dark Phoenix. So use the official title from the studio, not website's assumption that isn't even official. Hotwiki (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
We used what the majority of reliable sources were using which is how Wikipedia works. If we are going to go against that then we need specific consensus from the community. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
No this article should have used the "official title" that came from the studio, 20th Century Fox. NOT websites' assumption/version of the official title. This [1] is the article in which the first release date for the film was announced, and it was simply called as Dark Phoenix. I don't recall an official statement from Fox that they have changed the title or any of the producers calling it as X-Men Dark Phoenix. Also Box Office Mojo still has the title Dark Phoenix in their site. So this article basically has been mentioning the wrong title all this time! This should be moved asap! Dont tell me we are gonna need another proof for this. Again, the studio releasing the film give the official site, not entertainment or news websites. × Hotwiki (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying that we should accept that reference (from THR) as the official word from the studio? I had considered that previously, but if others agree then I would be fine to use it for the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that one of the first few articles that mentioned the release dates along with the films that were set for those dates? In fact, that was the source that was originally posted in the X-Men (film series) article when the November release date announcement came out. There was never an official name change for website to claim that the title has changed to X-Men: Dark Phoenix. Anyway, this film should be moved to its official title as soon as possible. It is not a good look if Wikipedia continues to use a false film title.Hotwiki (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Again I ask: are you saying that the THR source is giving us the official title? You keep talking about an official title and it not having been changed, but you haven't said where you learned what the official title is. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it will help: polish distributor page says that the orginal title is only "Dark Pheonix" [2]. Mike210381 (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go through and re-check with all of our sources to make sure we are reflecting them accurately and not mistakenly adding "X-Men" where we shouldn't be, and if it is looking like the title is definitely just Dark Phoenix I will go ahead and make the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I told you that from the start. This section is from december. Big Al-MuSti (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So based on the social media accounts for X-Men in the UK, it looks like the UK (at least) will call it X-Men: Dark Phoenix, while the USA will have just plain "Dark Phoenix". Should the article reflect this? 62.164.189.226 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

They do seem to indicate that, but do not actually say as such so I think we should be on the look-out for a better source to back this up. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The UK trailer calls the film "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". 62.164.189.226 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Dark PhoeniⓍ / Dark Phoeniⓧ

Dark PhoeniⓍ / Dark Phoeniⓧ should redirect here -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Dark Phoenix (film) → X-Men: Dark Phoenix – Actual name. Unreal7 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

MCU?

If This Is After The Merger,Is This In The MCU? Coolguy3478 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Not until it was written that way. And I don’t think the merger is complete... yet. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain's character

Simon Kinberg, the film's director, confirmed that Jessica Chastain's character is not named Smith. See this interview. 197.229.1.96 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

20th Century Fox co-distribution??

Why Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does not co-distributed with 20th Century Fox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:598B:953F:E87C:C4E4:BFCA:BD27 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is Disney?

Official website, 20th Century Fox SG's YT, 20th Century Fox UK's YT, 20th Century Fox still distributes the film.--Justice305 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

In the overview section, a change could be made from 'The film received mixed to negative reviews, with reviewers criticizing plot and acting.' to 'The film received mixed to negative reviews, with reviewers criticizing plot and acting, though Fassbender's performance received some praise.' Mccl1122 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence "The film received mixed to negative reviews, with reviewers criticizing plot and acting." does not appear in the article at time of writing. NiciVampireHeart 07:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Troubled production

If it was really as bad as it was for Fant4stic, this source may be used as a starting point. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Box office

Box Office Mojo states that the box office of this movie is 234 million, how is it possible that this article says it's only 204 million? Someone trolling or what? Blogorgonopsid, 27th June 2019, 17:09 (GMT+1) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Plot question - Quicksilver or Peter Maximoff?

As I post this, the plot says "she injures Peter Maximoff..." Wasn't he Quicksilver when injured? That's like saying Peter Parker was injured when it was actually Spider-Man, Logan/Wolverine, Clark Kent/Superman, Bruce Wayne/Batman, etc. The plot originally said Quicksilver. An editor changed it. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailer clearly shows Maximoff in Quicksilver mode as he climbs the sky toward Jean. If you've seen the movie and agree it's more accurate to say it was Quicksilver who was injured please make the change to either Quicksilver or Quicksilver (Peter Maximoff). Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't say it's incorrect. It's just a matter of phrasing. "Quicksilver" and "Peter Maximoff" are the same person. He doesn't become Quicksilver by putting on the suit (or "being in Quicksilver mode" which, no disrespect, isn't a thing). It makes no sense to say that one phrasing can be more accurate.Zeck (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of cited content

Looks like some anonymous user is attempting to suppress or remove cited content without explanation here and (again, after being warned) here.

They were warned (in good faith) that removing cited content without explanation may in future be seen as vandalism; they immediately removed it again, so have been warned accordingly.

Ubcule (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Distributor

Use what references say. And see #RfC notice and comments there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC concluded with: The general consensus here is to retain the credited distributor ("20th Century Fox" or "Fox Searchlight Pictures") and as such, to not unilaterally change names of credited subsidiary distributors to their parent, "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Add that Dark Phoenix was a Box-office bomb?

For discussion is whether the following additions should be made to the lede:

  1. Should box office bomb be added?
  2. Should the appropriate dollar figures be added? Proposed addition: "The film's break-even costs including marketing and distribution are estimated to be between $330-372M resulting in a lost between $79-120M."

Currently the lede makes it appear that the film netted/profited $52M, but this does not take into account the additional costs of marketing and distribution. These additional costs result in actual costs estimated to be $330-372M resulting in a loss between $79-120M. The result is Wikipedia:UNDUE and lack of Wikipedia:NPOV because it portrays a profit rather than a significant loss.

Wikipedia:RSP sources along with statements and dollars:

  1. Deadline - "Bombs at the box office" Breakeven $350M+ estimated to lose $100M+
  2. USAToday - "Biggest Movie Bombs" and "money loser" budget $200M, gross $252M "money loser"
  3. Hollywood Reporter - "Box office bomb" none given
  4. Business Insider - "Major flop" "cost $200M to produce (not counting marketing)"
  5. Variety - "Bombs" "flop spectacularly" "... $200M to produce. That doesn't even take into account hundreds of millions in global marketing and distribution fees it incurred."
  6. Independent - "box office flop" "contributed to $170M Disney loss
  7. Indiewire 3-2020 - "Bomb" "big contributor to the company (Disney) losing $170M"
  8. IGN - "biggest fox office flops" none given
  9. Fox News - "Box office flop" none given
  10. Indiewire 8-2019 - "Box office bomb" "tanked"

Discussion

  • Add both 1&2 - There are amble reliable sources stating the film was a box office bomb/flop, and there are no sources stating it was a success. For the dollars, because the $s are estimates, it would have to be shown with a range and the appropriate cites would be best. Not having this information in the lede presents a biased (and therefore WP:UNDUE and WP:POV) view. ToeFungii (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ToeFungii, your recent addition of but ultimately lost money due to marketing and distribution costs is fine (although maybe "failed to turn a profit" would be more clear), because as you point out, it is supported by sourcing. "box office bomb", on the other hand, is – not sure how many times this needs to be repeated to get the point across but here goes – a completely subjective term. How much money does a film have to lose (or not make) to be considered a bomb? Can anyone point us to a clear-cut definition of a "box office bomb"? No, they cannot. Even films that may turn a profit are often considered to have "bombed" if they don't reach initial studio or audience expectations. It's a totally useless term in an encyclopedic context because of its subjectivity. We are not the entertainment press: just because they throw around words like "bomb" and "flop" does not mean they are appropriate to include here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
As I explained to you word-for-word on your talkpage to which you did not reply, box office bomb is not a subjective term, it is a widely established and used term used in the movie industry to describe a film that has been unprofitable during its theatrical run. It is seen in a plethora of sources everywhere, for instance here, here and here. There's nothing subjective about it or its definition, a film has either made money in respect to its budget and marketing costs or it did not, and Dark Phoenix simply did not. And there are multiple sources to support that, not least the source I already put a spotlight on in our edit summaries which can be found lower down in the body of the article. You do not need a studio to release it's own exact financials to asses a film's financial success as plenty of other reliable sources report on the matter including those that provide exact figures for overall profits/losses on a film, like the aformentioned source I noted.
That being said, although not perfect, I would be happy to accept the current phrasing of 'ultimately lost money due to marketing and distribution costs' as that gets the same essential point across and as you say, there are a plethora of sources to support it. Perhaps as you appear to be so against the term 'box office BOMB' due to percieving the 'bomb' part as subjective or slightly sensational, maybe 'box office disappointment' or something similar would work better instead? Davefelmer (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Although "box office bomb" or "box office disappointment" is frequently used in the media, it's still a subjective term which doesn't follow WP:NEUTRAL tone requirement. The neutral language would be "lost money" or "failed to turn a profit" due to marketing and distribution costs. All we need to do is provide the facts and then people can judge for themselves if it's a disappointment or not. — Starforce13 18:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as the term "box office bomb" goes, looks like there are definitely enough sources saying that to justify using it in the article, but if people are against it the something like "commercial failure" conveys the same idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I thank all for a productive discussion and collaboration. As a novice using this insane virus time to dig in to wp im learning a lot. I'd like to push back Starforce a bit that box office bomb violates neutral and joeyconnick that there must be a clear definition. (Let me say that I have a horrible headache atm, so i wont be as clear likely as id like). I don't think neutral is violated because according to neutral widely held opinions can be part of articles although it would mean inline cites as i understand it. Although what's on one page doesn't mean its good for another, I want to use an example of a widely held opinion that would be alike. Ali's page says "widely regarded ... as one of the greatest boxers of all time." That's an opinion with no definition. The key is are there reliable sources to support it per neutral. Above I give 9 sources that are consensus reliable sources that all state box office bomb/flop. So I believe neutral is addressed because 9 sources is pretty wide. With respect to no clear definition, i dont see that as an issue because its a widely held opinion of reliable sources, and theres no guidance saying such a statement cant be made, but again i think the wording is the issue. specifically the suggested wording thats along the lines that it should be said as an widely held opinion and may need inline cited source.

I'll accept pushback on this because I am a novice, but I'm not when it comes to reading wp. So i've read/seen many opinions on pages and as i read wp:neutral there is a particular way that it needs to be worded.

Let me ask if this might be an acceptable consensus: massage a little the lede wording (use the above suggested "failed to turn a profit" and then in the box office section have the more clear marketing/distribution cost statement, and some wording to be worked on and agreed on along the lines outlined in wp:neutral that it's widely regarded as a box office failure but with an internal wp link to box office bomb. This would keep the lede slimmer and cleaner, still contain what I believe to be acceptable inclusion of what I will accept is an opinion, but a widely regarded and sourced opinion. Again sorry to be wordy but the meds i took for my headache have not kicked in yet, but wanted to see if maybe this could be agreeable. and again thanks to all. ToeFungii (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I want to add one more quick thing. the film is listed as one of the top 100 unprofitable films of all time, and i accept that's another wp page which doesnt change another page, but out of all the films ever made to be one of the top 100 is a pretty important and it resulted in sequels being taken off the table is a pretty bad fact. if it wasnt one of the top losers, then i think the counter-argument would be stronger. thanks again. ToeFungii (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, we're not denying that it's a box office bomb. It was. It's one of the biggest failures in recent history. There's no denying that. We're trying to figure the correct language to use. Do we use subjective expressions/WP:IDIOMS/WP:SLANG like "box office bomb" or do we use formal, neutral tone? — Starforce13 22:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I think at the very least if we are not going to use the term box office bomb for one of the most unprofitable movies ever, we should at least mention how much money it lost for the studio, which can be found in several of the sources linked at the start of this section such as this one[1]. So the full sentence in the intro could be added to so it reads, "It grossed $252 million worldwide on a $200-million budget, but ultimately lost money of up to $120 million for the studio due to marketing and distribution costs." Davefelmer (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral says "Usually articles will contain info about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." I take subjective to be interchangable with opinion, but if when saying that box office bomb is subjective please provide the specific wp guidance where you are taking subjective from.

In the 10 wp:rsp sources I provided, 6 say bomb and 4 say flop. Neutral guidance and guidance that flows form it, say attributions can be made provided they are sourced from the majority of reliable sources. So I believe that a statement that's along the lines of "widespread opinion is that DP was a box office bomb." Having said that, I'm not so attached to the specific term where at this point I'd say a rfc would be the next step, so box office failure seems to be an acceptable term but that term deserves to point to wp's box office bomb/flop page for the convenience of users to delve deeper into box office failures. If this is not acceptable, I'll write up a rfc to include box office bomb and submit it, but I'm hoping that we can all agree to this compromise. Thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://deadline.com/2019/06/dark-phoenix-bombs-at-the-box-office-reasons-why-1202629749/

please see changes at dark phoenix

I made some additions to both the article page and talk page above. you all participated in commenting so wanted to make sure you saw them so if you disagreed you could weigh in. thanks.

starforce13, adanstom97, joeyconnick, davefelmer

ToeFungii (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I took out the link to "box office bomb" as per previous objections. Otherwise it's fine. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Joeyconnick (talk). Although it is abviously instrumental to be fair in pointing out the negative aspects of a film's performance when it does indeed perform badly, especially as badly as this one did, I think it has already been clearly established that the film failed at the box office from the reference to the amount of money the studio lost to the poor reviews it generated. I fully understand and appreciate ToeFungii (talk)'s point in our discussion section above about how all the sources linked at the top do call it a bomb or a flop, but I think in light of the arguments raised and our subsequent discussion, we managed to get the same point across just as efficiently without needing to use the exact term. Davefelmer (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I thought that's what I was trying to do. Until being introduced to the term bob i had not come across the wp page about it and find the discussion interesting. I believed that not including the actual phrase on the page but pointing to a page about that topic was a fair compromise. I'll withdrawal the rfc if that internal link is added back, but otherwise i'm going to just throw it out there for the actual phrase as i believe it is appropriate, allowable, and well sourced. i might be wrong, but an rfc will help determine that. ToeFungii (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

joeyconnick well then i'm going to do a rfc because i believe the term can be used, but was trying to be agreeable. not sure if i'll be able to today as i've been ill, but i'm going to try. thanks ToeFungii (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it’s pretty universally accepted as a bomb (it’s proven to have lost at least $100 million), so misting it as such shouldn’t be a debate. I also don’t think running the list of publications is necessary; just cite them TropicAces (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should Dark Phoenix (film) contain a statement regarding its box office failure?

Question: Should Dark Phoenix contain a statement regarding its box office failure in lede and box office section?

Option 1: "The film is widely described as a box office bomb including by USAToday, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and Variety."
Option 2: insert into existing sentence: "was a box office failure". Note phrase includes WP link to box office bomb.
Option 3: Do not include a box office failure or box office bomb/flop statement.

At least nine WP:RSP sources refer to Dark Phoenix as a box office bomb/flop. The film is one of the top 100 money losers of all time.
ToeFungii (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: A user in error believed this issue to have already been through a rfc when it has not. It has only been through talk page discussion without a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources below are considered reliable by consensus at WP:RSP and WikiProject Film Resources.

  1. Deadline Hollywood- "Bombs at the box office"
  2. USAToday - "Biggest Movie Bombs"
  3. Hollywood Reporter - "Box office bomb"
  4. Variety - "Bombs" "flop spectacularly" "
  5. Independent - "box office flop"
  6. Indiewire 3-2020 - "Bomb"
  7. IGN - "biggest fox office flops"
  8. Fox News - "Box office flop"
  9. Indiewire 8-2019 - "Box office bomb"
  10. Business Insider has not been deemed reliable or unreliable by consensus- "Major flop"

Discussion: (please see above rfc for previous talk page discussion without consensus)

@ToeFungii: since there seems to have already been an RfC about this aboveLooks like it was a discussion, not an RfC., I'm going to remove this tag. RfCs are generally only for discussions that require widespread input due to significance or prior disagreement, whereas this seems like an issue that you all will be able to work out just through normal discussion here. To offer a bit of advice, if we went with option 1, it wouldn't be necessary to list the sources in the sentence; just put them as references. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Removed by ToeFungii and restored by {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: ToeFungii has restored the RfC tag. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb (talk · contribs) is wrong that there has been a rfc about this. there has only been talk page discussion that did not reach consensus.

  • Option 1 - The phrase is clearly and obviously widely attributed to the film by reliable sources. Even if considered a subjective opinion, WP:Neutral allows for inclusion of such statements based upon "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." In addition WP:Subjective states there are no "forbidden words or expressions" and that even disparaging words may be included if "those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source" which in this case is based on nine sources. If not option 1, then I'd select Option 2.ToeFungii (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, that's what this film was and that's was reliable sourced called it. I don't think there's even a need to mention it being called a box office bomb, we can just say that it was, with the sources as references. So, plain "was a box office bomb" for me. El Millo (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I was actually going to say Option 2 until I saw that the box office revenue is higher than the production budget. Unfortunately, to the layperson reader, this positive difference can make it seem like it's not a bomb. There are a lot of lead sections in film articles that put these numbers next to each other to incorrectly imply how well a film did. That comparison gets much fuzzier the closer the numbers are, as opposed to a $1 million film making $100 million or a $100 million film making $1 million. So I would support Option 1 and milk the sources for all they're worth to explain why it is a bomb. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The financial losses are well covered in the the third paragraph of the lead, but the scale of the loss is not clear, so perhaps this could be expanded on. A link to List of biggest box-office bombs might also provide a reader with added context. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 EXCEPT remove "including by USAToday, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, and Variety." You can just cite those sources as references to the sentence, which can just be "The film is widely described as a box office bomb." Ikjbagl (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per discussions made above. Idealigic (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1 except replace the plain text publication names with actual citations. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dark_Phoenix_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1240521739"