Jump to content

Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

These films you could add to the list ?, They all failed at the Box Office

Paranoia 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.98.129 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some films that you must add to this list

pleas add these films below. I intrested with all of them. They lost too much money

  • Osmosis Jones; Hard Rain; Beloved; Mary Reilly; Relic

What about Pimp took £205 at the box office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.32.169 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

W.E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.149 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation

Usually studios keep the half of the gross (with the cinemas keep the other half), so... i have a question about terminator salvation, acording with the-numbers.com: Theatrical Performance

  • Total US Gross $125,322,469
  • International Gross $246,306,070
  • Worldwide Gross $371,628,539

Budget:

  • Production Budget $200,000,000
  • Int.Distribution

Rights (Sony): $100,000,000

  • US Distribution Rights

(Warner Bros.): $60,000,000

  • Promotion: $100,000,000
  • Total: $460,000,000

Against $185,814,269.5 from the film (after being divided between the studios and the cinemas) and a net loss from $274,185,731 With this, I think that it can be considered a box office bomb, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.182.91 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Former similar article

A similar article was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion in September 2009. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs. Fences&Windows 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Table sorting issue

I noticed that, when you click the button under net loss after correction for inflation (or whatever the exact words are), from most to least, minus ninetysomething million ends up ABOVE minus onehundredsomething million. Similarly, when you go from least to most, minus onehundredsomething million turns up above minus fortysomething million. I don't know if this is something which is true for other lists as well, and thus is more an issue with the scripts or whatnot of Wikipedia itself, or if there is something wrong with just the table-scrip of this particular page. - Ilyushin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.21.71 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Losses

woudn't be better to show te amount of the losses in percentaje? (no hablo inglés)

I agree with the above. I'd like to see a sortable category showing the sales as a fraction of the cost, to see which ones did the 'worst,' not which ones wasted the most money. A movie with a $300 million budget that makes $200 million did much 'better' than a $1 million movie that only made $100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jonah Hex

How soon before we can add it here? Does it have to close out its theatrical run? Jstohler (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speed Racer wrong on list

Just checked Box office mojo and it seems that the production budget was $120 million instead of whoever put $200 million, it still lost a bit as it only made $94 million domestically but it should be lowered on the list 76.111.152.75 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Onepiece226


$200 million is the total cost of the movie (production cost $120m + marketing cost $80m) according to the provided reference.Clicklander (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Net losses" columns inaccurate

"Net losses" column is calculated inaccurately. Losses to the studio/production company should be calculated as

NetIncome-TotalCosts

where NetIncome = sum of net Global Film Rentals, DVD sales, Home Video Licensing and Ancillary Licensing, and

where TotalCosts = sum of Production Costs, Prints and Advertising.

(Film Rentals is the net income the distributor collects from the exhibitor. Though usually approximated at 50% of Gross Box Office, each film has a unique contract containing specific rental rates which often change over the course of an engagement.)

The current page is substantially inaccurate. It ignores Prints & Ads as a substantial cost (often almost as high as production cost), ignores non-theatrical revenue as income, and uses gross box office figures instead of net Film Rentals. It's important to note that global box office accounts for less than 20% of a films total lifetime revenues. This page is useless as a representation of motion picture accounting.64.62.244.51(talk) 04:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


This page has nothing to do with Hollywood accounting. Please consult the Box office bomb definition.Clicklander (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


distributor/theater cuts are generally unknown for each movie, and even the rule of thumb — not accounted for here — is changing with new media. the columns purported to represent losses are nothing but baseless arithmetic for simpletons. one cannot find the profit/loss for a movie by following the formula used in the article. more wikipedia joke material dressing itself up to be taken seriously. 70.90.84.254 (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed. This anonymous poster has a good point; the "net losses" column is an amateur's poor attempt at Hollywood accounting. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no attempt at Hollywood accounting in this article! As it is clearly stated the formula is used for calculating net losses does not take into account several other factors. It only takes some published data from reliable sources on box-office revenues and budget/marketing costs. Those are definitely not enough to calculate with accuracy the exact loss for a studio, however it is a good indication for the size of a bomb and for comparison among them. In most of the cases it is impossible to know the accurate net losses, since studios do not publish every detail on their film expenses, but this is not in the scope of this article anyway.Clicklander (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Studio/ Distributor

Maybe put the studio or distribor associated to the film? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.245.31 (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Munchausen

The table is way off on Terry Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. First, the $8 million is from the US only, where it was released with only 117 prints, whereas an art film gets 400 (strangely enough, European figures for this film are only ever available as several million ticket sales on top of those $8 million, but never in money). In spite of its more-than-limited release, Munchausen had Columbia's biggest opening figures ever since The Last Emperor, and then after one or two weekends the studio just pulled the plug on it and pulled all North American copies.

Second, as is revealed in the documentary The Madness and Misadventures of Munchausen included on the 25th Anniversary DVD, the film's actual production costs were $35 million which was exactly the amount Gilliam and producer Schühly had asked for when shopping the script around (and which, according to Schühly, Columbia's David Puttnam had agreed to in oral deals, but then Putnam got fired and the studio sold in the middle of production), the other $10 million were headless, senseless money-burning on the side of Columbia by financing huge marketing campaigns for the US (nation-wide TV ads involving international stars such as Sting, comic-book adaptations) that were all finished but never used.

Basically, it was all a big smear campaign against Gilliam on the side of trade press and the established studio system after Gilliam had taken on this very system with Brazil...and won! Not to mention the fact that Munchausen received four Academy Award, several BAFTA and Saturn Award nominations, and won a number of Silver Ribbons. Is that typical for a "box-office bomb"? --79.193.39.11 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010

This comment rambles on and digresses a lot.

I agree that the European grosses (and international) should be added (if true). The relation to "The Last Emperor" and the "pulling the plug" are not important.

Even if the "extra 10 million" was money wasted by Columbia, it still applies to the budgetary concerns.

The "smear campaign" against Gilliam, and "winning" over Brazil, and the awards it won, have nothing to do with this article. "Box office bomb" in this article clearly has no opinionated basis. Nandor1 (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

References to use

References to use. Feel free to add more. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"2008 dollars"

The intro to the article, and the heading on the losses column, emphasizes that the money is in "2008" dollars. I found this kind of outdated at first, but the presence of movies that came out after 2008 (Mars Need Moms), makes this seem especially bizarre. Is it true that it only applies to 2008, and if not, why does it say that? This seems like a problem either way. Nandor1 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


"Green Lantern"

Should we list down Green lantern down now since it only gross 149 million world wide on a 200 million budget? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.27.98 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Green Lantern has already broken even the production budget with worldwide box office revenues beyond $200 million. However it is very probable to appear in this list soon when box office sales will be closed, since this film has additional huge marketing cost.Clicklander (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was added but people have been removing it. Let's debate to keep it or not. 173.79.27.98 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though Green Lantern is still running out in some movie theaters around the world, its position in the list has been stabilized, so it is very improbable to change position. Therefore I think we can add it now in the list.(Clicklander (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

"Dylan Dog"

Should we add this on the list since it only gross 4 million worldwide on a 20 million budget? It seems like a flop to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.27.98 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dudley Do-Right"

According to www.the-numbers.com & www.wolframalpha.com Dudley Do-Right production budget is only $22 million instead of $70 million as Box Office Mojo and other references indicate. I suspect that $22 million was the initial budget and $70 million is the final cost but still not sure. If not one of the two resources must be mistaken, however the difference in that case is huge!Clicklander (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Revenue/Budget Ratio

How about adding a revenue/budget ratio column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.221.204 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


The purpose of this article is to present and compare the biggest box office bombs of all time in terms of losses. A film that has a low revenue/budget ratio does not necessarily mean that it is a big bomb as well. For instance a film with a very low revenue/budget ratio but with low total cost as well, is a low risk movie, thus it cannot even consider being a bomb. Therefore I think that such a column is irrelevant to the purpose of the article.Clicklander (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because the numbers listed here vary so wildly that there is a large variation amongst high risk movies. Two bombs that both lost $50 million could be wildly different in terms of revenue/budget ratio, and it'd be nice to have a way to sort these high risk movies to see it compared this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

i think the ratio should be included. because a movie that makes 30 million on a 300 million budget is a bigger disaster in terms of return-on-investment than 330 million movie on a 600 million budget. we can simply state that only big-budget movies are to be considered, and thus avoid bothering with indie-movies that had a return of $0 on a budget that consisted of 2 bags of chips and a borrowed camcorder.84.105.241.19 (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sort still broken

For the columns "Worldwide theater gross" and "Net losses". For example, "Net losses" is sorting as 90M, 9M, 80M, 8M, etc. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star

Bucky Larson, even though it has a $10 million budget, still grossed less than $2 million at the box office. Does that still make it one of the biggest box office flops in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.128.190 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't because the net loss is relatively small compared to many other films. A very low revenue to cost ratio does not necessarily indicate that the movie is a box office bomb too. Please consult the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_office_bombClicklander (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


John Carter

I guess John Carter is the new champion now that Disney is expected to take a $200 million fall for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.45.26 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It will very probably be. We have only to wait for a few more weeks to know its final position in the list.Clicklander (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The reality is that it will probably end up as the movie which lost the most money to date. However, the list uses net loss not actual loss. This means John Carter is likely to finish outside the top 10. Or bottom 10 if you want to look at it that way. People keep adding John Carter even though it's still taking money in cinemas worldwide. Why the rush? Can't they wait until the woman of larger stature breaks out a tune? Stanley Oliver (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy and others

This section is completely unsourced, and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Editor Clicklander (talk · contribs) claims that the source of the information is the list itself. The problem is that the list is incomplete, and therefore it is inappropriate to count how many times various actors appear in it. Even if it were complete, WP:SYNTH would prevent us from drawing such conclusions, if no reliable sources do. But the most important reason this paragraph is inappropriate is our strict WP:BLP policy, which applies here - we are not allowed to make claims based on original research that imply Eddie Murphy is a bad actor (regardless of how true those claims are). There's really nothing to discuss, I'm just letting you know why this information is not going to stay on Wikipedia, unless a source can be found. Mlm42 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


The section Statistics includes statistical information derived from the list. There is no original research and therefore no source is needed to support this information. Furthermore in this section there are no claims or implications about how good or bad an actor is. There is only info like how big contribution an actor or a studio has in the bombs appeared in this list only and not what his/hers general career performance is. That’s why all information under statistics is dynamically changing in the same way the list is changing from time to time as more bombs appear or disappear. You can update this info periodically but please do not delete those useful statistical data.Clicklander (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But you didn't address this point: The list is not complete (nor even well-defined.. what exactly is the cut-off for a "bomb"?), and therefore it is inappropriate to make "statistics" with it. Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Statistics are made for better comprehension of what you see in the list. Not for making general conclusions.Clicklander (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But you're missing the point: The list is not complete nor well-defined.. as far as I know, some editor is simply listing the films he thinks are the worst ones, which also happened to be net losses. Maybe there are some high-profile ones that have been left out.. how am I to know? That's why Wikipedia has policies like WP:V and WP:OR. You need to address the issue more clearly of which films should go in this list. Mlm42 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The list will never be complete and will never be perfect defined. It is just a presentation and comparison of some of the most unsuccessful in the box office films in the history. Also it is clearly stated in the beginning of the article that it is a partial list. For once again statistics concern this list only and nothing beyond.Clicklander (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's not clear why this list is notable enough to exist at all.. if it's not meant to be complete (or even well-defined) why not just have a section in Box office bombs which discusses specific examples? Why have this long list at all? Mlm42 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a long list because wikipedia editors have found many notable examples of box office bombs and from encyclopedic point of view; it is interesting to have all of them in a separate article for comparison reasons. Please stop vandalizing this article..Clicklander (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Clicklander, it's not vandalism. I have a good faith belief that this stuff doesn't belong on Wikipedia. So, by the way, do many of the editors who responded at this closely related (successful) AfD. The main problem, which hasn't been addressed, and which you don't even perceive is a problem, is: There is no precise (or ever rough) criteria for determining whether a film should or shouldn't be included. This is a serious problem, because it fails to satisfy this guideline. Mlm42 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have problem with the definition then you have chosen the wrong place to express your worries. As long as the article Box office bomb is accepted by the Wikipedia community, the List of biggest box office bombs is acceptable too, since it is fully in compliance with the definition. There are no precise criteria for determining up to what point a film should or should not be included, and that’s why this list is partial and will never be completed. But all films in the list are definitely bombs according to the definition. The aim of this article is not to include all possible bombs but to present some notable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicklander (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point.. is that article and definition actually accepted by the Wikipedia community? Are there sources to back up this strict definition? I think some sources use the term "bomb" differently than others, so maybe there shouldn't be such a strict definition. Mlm42 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Losses have been estimated....

"Losses have been estimated from the revenues returned from box office sales worldwide subtracting the total costs of the movie including production, marketing, and distribution costs, although many studios do not provide official marketing costs".

A simple question: who is doing the estimating? The article doesn't make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There are references for the input data for all estimations.Clicklander (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that seems to be incorrect -- at least, if there are, they aren't in this article. Almost all the lines in the table have no citations. I looked at A Troll in Central Park more-or-less at random, and found that there is no reference supporting the figure of $71,368 either in this article or the article on the film itself (the latter being quite unreferenced). Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check out box office Modjo for A Troll in Central Park and you will see your figure.Clicklander (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So if you know of a source for this, and the dozens of other unreferenced lines, please add them to this article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Where is the $23,500,000 'total cost' figure sourced from? If there are sources, they should be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

For the figures with no citations, the data are normally taken either from one of the last 4 references or from other Wikipedia pages with links to other references. When editors add a new film to the list, they are normally mention their references. Check out the history for details. If you cannot find a source for some inputs, then simply remove the film from the list. If you want to you can also add citations wherever you think is needed.Clicklander (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No.The sources for the figures must be explicitly cited in the article. Vague hand-waving comments about links on other Wikipedia pages it totally unacceptable here - you are making very specific assertions of a negative nature. An unsourced list of this form is entirely against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to spell this out from the WP:CHALLENGE section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found." Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I said for the biggest majority of figures with no citation, the data can be found in the last 4 references. We should start then adding citations and remove films with insufficient references.Clicklander (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That is going to be problematic as far as the lede is concerned - it currently states that "the films in this list generated the largest box office losses of all time": if we are removing films because they lack sources, the list will become even more incomplete - not that the lede should be making such an assertion anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"The largest box office losses of all time" is an unverifiable factual statement the lead definitely should not be making. Ditto for the title, "Biggest box office bombs", especially since "biggest" and "box office bomb" varies according to the source and how you do the math. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexander?

Why is Alexander (film) in this list? In the main page is written that the budget is $ 155 million and not $ 201,200,000 as I can read on this page... I think it's a mistake and Alexander has to be deleted from this list...There's someone who knows something more about it? Thanks --Megumegun * 23:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

$46,200,000 is the advertising costs according to The Numbers: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/ALXND.phpClicklander (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How has this article not been deleted?

Or if not, at least severely cleaned up. This isn't a list of notable box office bombs, its a list of movies, their budgets and grosses and gargantuan portion of original research. We have no idea if these movies actually generated losses since this list only takes cinematic distribution into account, or if so, losses for whom, since often times multiple studios and distributors share the burden of cost - for example MGM posted a loss on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, while other studios/distributors involved apparently made it into the black. I'm inclined to propose deletion or at least a massive cleanup, but I'd love to hear what others have to say. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


This list started in accordance to the box office bomb definition. The current title of this article is confusing since the movies of this list did not necesarily generated loses for the studios (you should take into account more data such as other revenues like DVD sales and so on). The title should be restored to the original one list of biggest box office bombs in order to make sense. If there is a problem with the original definition box office bomb (I have noticed that recent changes have been made in this term) then the list might need a massive clean up.Clicklander (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT sure why anyone would be moved to want to delete such an article! When I see interests like this, it infuriates me that people out there can be so negative in perspective and negative in consequence: ALL the time one hears about "box office bomb" and wants to learn more about the meaning of that and to what extent that film exists within a list of other like-films that also performed poorly. Hence the topic is essential as it is ubiquitous. One only needs to look at John Carter references to see how recent and often the topic is noted. And, if the disagreement is only the quality of the content then one should concern themselves with Hollywood journalism as I can see that is where the references point to! So, if you don't like the idea of the article then you must not have a grip on reality as "bombs"...must. happen. in. life! If you don't like its content then you should contact the Hollywood publications and correct their information as that is where the public READS ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME!

I don't even know what you're trying to say here... it seems to indicate a lack of understanding of wikipedia policies on OR, Reliability and notability. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Major clean up effort

I see clicklander has already kicked this effort off... I'm going to go through now and scrub some dubious/non notable entries, but I'd really like to see a redo of the entire format. If we include the cost and budget columns that's fine, but the formulas are pure OR and should be removed. Further I'd like to start going through and citing each film with the ultimate goal of removing movies that are not referenced. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The arbitrary formula is OR and should be removed, I've added a tag to the lead as reminder. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Because of the Wiki list format that's a bigger chore than it should be, and up until now Clicklander has been doing most of the work themselves. Hopefully I can lend a hand - once we're done it should reflect culturally notable bombs, all with references. I've done a big cleanup, but before I do any further work I'd like to get Clicklander's input since he/she's put so much work into this. --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the whole clean up process, though I have expressed my concerns regarding the formula remove. I believe it is helpful for sorting the bombs and have an indication for their size. As long as there is a note that loses coming out from the formula are not the real ones, I do not think there is a problem to leave it as it is. The other thing I want to point out, is that I noticed that during your first cleanup atempt you removed some very notable bombs like “Sahara”. Besides the cost/box office sales calculation, there are many articles on the web mentioning that this film is one of the greatest flops ever.Clicklander (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment weekly on the top 10 biggest bombs

Saw this and thought it might be useful to your article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs to Have Some Kind of Limit

I mean, Wanderlust as a notable box office bomb? Really? Anyway, like the list of most expensive films page only includes films with budget of $150 million of higher, I think this page needs to have a limit, or else it'll get out of control. Films that lost $10-30 million may be bombs, but they're not notable in the slightest (at least, not in terms of media coverage). Have the page only list bombs that lost the studio(s) $75 million or something like that. That seems to be a reasonable number. - Enter Movie (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there need to be a limit. However, I think it needs to be based on the percent of lost not total budget. Some of the movies that bomb the most have had small budgets, but as a matter of percentages, it lost the most. Just look at the to 9 moves you can see what I mean.
I think it needs to be at least 50%. How can a movie be considered a "Bomb" if they didn't lose the majority of there investment. However, I'm not qualified to make that call, unless there is a consensus.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think, since no one seems to be objecting, I will implement this. Unless a movies "Net loss as a percentage of total cost" is greater then 50%, I see no reason to include it in a list of "Bombs". Again, how can it be a bomb if it didn't at least lose "Most" of it's money.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have implemented it. However, I think it may be a good idea to discuss the limit we really want. 50% is what I think the lowest should be, but I would be more than happy to have it higher, say 75%. After all a lot of movies have lost alot of money, but are not considered "Bombs", but just bad movies. However, I will leave it at 50% if no one comments--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


I do not agree with what you did. The net loss as a percentage of total cost is not a criterion to determine whether or not a movie is a Box office Bomb. According to the definition “Not all films that fail to earn back their estimated costs during their theatrical runs are bombs, and the label is generally applied to films that miss earnings projections by a wide margin, particularly when they are very expensive to produce, and sometimes in conjunction with middling or poor reviews.” I do not see for instance Zyzzyx Road as a notable box office bomb since it is inexpensive and lost only 1,3M. I think the list should be returned to the previous form and put the limit in relation to the net losses rather than the percentage of loss. Clicklander (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I will put back the 5 movies I took off.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
However, the problem with the using that definition is almost none of the list is cited as such. Going by that definition, the ones I removed would still have to be removed. I would also note, that Zyzzyx Road is actually listed in the main cite for this page. It made only $30 and is the lowest earning film of all time. So it would remain. So what do you suggest?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest for the moment to leave all bombs in the list and have a further discussion about the type of limit. I would say only films that do not have external reference indicating them as bombs, could be removed. Do not forget to put back the indication for the costs do not include marketing and sort the list according to 2012 loses. Clicklander (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what user:Enter Movie and I asked for a discussion on, but you are the first to comments since August. That is why I went ahead and did it. After all if no one comments for several weeks, then there is no issue. As to the indication that the costs do not include the marketing is no longer needed. It is noted in the title that costs are included when needed. If you look at the old list all but about 12 had this indication. What is the point of having it if all but a handful do not include marketing.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, it wasn't sorted based on the 2012 losses, it was completely random. I sorted it base on the title. Until then there was no order.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion for limitation according to 50% percentage of loss made on September 10th and you made the changes on the next day. You should normally wait a few days for a response before you go ahead. The indication when marketing cost is not included is useful for misunderstandings and for knowing that a film may have even higher position in the list. Clicklander (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • A few observations: firstly, as Clicklander has pointed out, not all films that fail to make back their budgets are box office bombs i.e. a film has to lose big. Also, a film that does make back its money eventually from secondary markets can still be a bomb. A box-office bomb is simply a film that loses a big chunk of cash at the box-office. It has nothing to do with rate of return: a $200 million film that makes $50 million at the box-office is a bomb; a film that costs $10 million and makes just $1 million probably isn't, or at least isn't a bomb on the same scale i.e. it had a lower return on investment, but it didn't lose as much cash. A box-office bomb is defined by how much cash the film loses. The simplest approach to this is to have a reasonable threshold, like how List of most expensive films is limited to films that cost $150 million, or limit it to a top 50 like at List of highest-grossing films. Ultimately people are interested in the films that lost the most money, so that's the premise you should try and build the list around. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Betty Logan. Let's put such a kind o limitClicklander (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we add John Carter now?

The movie had a budget of over 300 million if you add marketing into account. It failed to make that much worldwide, I think it's time. 173.79.18.162 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have is that it lost 19% not the 87.95% you put down. (67,221,900/350,000,000) So where is the line? What makes it a Bomb? Is every movie that loses money a Bomb?--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed John Carter for the time being. If you go to John Carter (film) it is sourced that John Carter cost 250,000,000, not 350,000,000 as you put down. Unless you can source that the move cost $100,000,000 more then is sourced on the page, then the movie actually made money.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, per here John Carter (film) cost $250,000,000 but made a World Wide gross of $282,778,100, therefore it Made $32,778,100. To include it on a list of "Bombs" when it made money is silly.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If you check this source, you will see the total expenditure is $350 million: $250 million budget plus $100 million in marketing & distribution costs. The film's budget is only the cost of producing the film. When people talk about how much the film cost they mean the film's budget i.e. the production cost (the $250 mil figure), but if you are determining whether it made money or not you really need to consider the total expenditure. As it stands, Disney spent $350 million on John Carter and it only grossed $280 million. Clearly Disney didn't make any money off it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, it should be included. Something tells me that film was on the list but someone took it off for a reason. 120.29.80.220 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The directors column

I notice this new column has been added. Does this actually add any value to the article? On the box-office articles we don't tend to include the directors because it is not actually that relevant to film finances. The relevant data here is the gross, the cost, the year perhaps to give it some perspective, the inflation adjustments, basically anything that provides a context for the data. Another thing worth bearing in mind is that on 1024x768 monitors the table goes off the monitor. As per MOS:ACCESS, readers should be able to view wikipedia tables at this resolution without horizontal scrolling, so ideally this column needs to go: it's not necessary for the purposes of the table and goes off the screen at the standard resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the there is a big mess with this list as it currently is, I would suggest to restore it to the last version before ARTEST4ECHO's changes and start any necessary editing al over again from that point.Clicklander (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the list was in a confused state before, so I would support a full revert if there is an agreed direction and format for the article. These are the things I would like to see addressed; I do not insist on any of my proposed solutions, but they are all issues that require some form of resolution:
  1. The net loss column needs to be renamed, since being a 'bomb' isn't a statement on profitability, so this quantity is not a loss, it's a quantifier of box-office performance. The term "box office bomb" only relates to box office income. I see this has been misinterpreted by several editors and resulted in a page move, so it really needs to be changed. Call it "Cost/gross differential" or something.
  2. The list should be clearly ordered by this differential.
  3. The list should be limited to a sensible number i.e. films that have lost 50 million, or 100 million, or a 'hard' list limit of 50 films or something.
  4. I think we should lose the "rate of return" percentage; it's just not relevant. We don't have ROI on the List of highest-grossing films simply because the chart is about box-office performance, not profit margins. The same logic applies here.
  5. The confusion between budget and marketing costs. The 'cost' of the film should ideally be split between two columns, so readers can clearly see when marketing and distribution expenses are being factored in. Since marketing can add an extra $100 million to a big summer film, it has a significant impact on the sums; this has already caused confusion with John Carter.
  6. There is a major question of whether we should use the box office gross or estimate the box office gross rental. The gross rental is the distributor's share of the gross (the exhibitor retains the other half), and was the traditional metric used for determining whether a film lost money at the box-office or not i.e. prior to the secondary markets; it is roughly 50% of the gross. For example, if you do the math on John Carter it is probably the biggest bomb of all time: it grossed 282 million, so that is a gross rental of about 140 million (the money Disney got); its budget and marketing costs combined came to 350 million, so it ultimately lost 210 million on its theatrical run (which roughly ties in with the figure reported by Disney). I bet there aren't too many films that lost 200 million at the box-office; obviously to say the film grossed 280 million and cost 250 million doesn't really tell the story at the box-office. That's really what we want the list to show: approximately how much money a film lost at the box-office.
Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. However regarding the gross rental issue, I think that this article does not aim to show precisely how much money a studio lost or which is the biggest bomb, rather than listing the biggest bombs and show an indication of how big they are (the size of the failure, not the actual money loss). The simple calculation how much money was invested (production+ marketing) minus the money you get in return from box-office sales can show this vey well. I do not think we need to get into more complicated analysis. Anyway it is impossible to know for each movie the exact gross rental, as is impossible to know other smaller costs related to a film which are not published officially.Clicklander (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well we can put point 6 to one side for the moment; if any other editors have any views on it we can discuss it further then. If you agree with my assessment of the first five points then feel free to make those edits to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

List name

As per WP:LISTNAME, a list title should NOT include adjectives such as 'notable', important', 'famous' etc. The basic prinicple behind this is that all entries should be notable by definition. The article should be moved to List of box office bombs if no-one objects. Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Add a column for the percentage difference between total amount and gross?

I was looking at this list for a related reason and thought that a percentage column might make it clearer how much was lost compared to looking left to right at 6-7 digit figures. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Have a look a few lines above (number 4.). This percentage column is irrelevant to the scope of the article.Clicklander (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

sortable

Hi,
regardless of which films should or should not be included, could we AGREE that somebody with skills in wp-tables should make this thing sortable??!
regards
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Change the List

Hello, I've made a modified list of the biggest box office bombs in my Sandbox here. It's not finished yet, but I stopped because it wouldn't be of any use if it is rejected. Now, the reason why I made it is because of the factors that go in when a film is considered a success or a bomb. It's not just gross minus budget. So many things go into these accounting that not every film is the same, and because of this, "a rule of thumb seems to be that the film needs to make twice its production budget globally."[1] That is how my list is organized.

What is wrong with the list right now? On top of the fact that it doesn't consider any standard (i.e. rule of thumb), the list is "unfair" (don't know any other way to put it), in that some films have marketing costs available and others don't. We don't really know if a film with marketing costs unavailable bombed less than one that did because we don't have the former's specific figures. My list solves this. (Reading the intro in my Sandbox may make this clearer.) Also, I would recommend the list show films that lost no more than $150 million or maybe the top 50 biggest box office bombs, like the Featured List here; there needs to be some kind stopping point, and with that, maybe rename the article to List of biggest box office bombs.

I will begin changing this List if I get no responses in two weeks (i.e. Jan. 16). Please feel free to comment, suggest, etc. Thanks. - Enter Movie (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with a lot of what you say, but need to point out that doubling the cost is incorrect, what you have to do is halve the box-office and subtract the costs from that. A studio typically gets half the box-office (the exhibitor gets the other half), and from their share the studio needs to recover the costs to prevent it being a box office bomb. Obviously the studio didn't lose 170 million on a 98 million picture (Cuttthroat Island in this case), they lost about 90 million. Halving the box office would be identical to the approach taken on the "Biggest Money Losers, Based on Absolute Loss on Worldwide Gross" (second last chart on the page) at [2]. At any rate, we have to be able to source the calculation we are using because if we invent our own formula it is original research. I agree it is inconsistent to include marketing costs in some cases but not others, and I also agree there should be some sensible limit. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Googling "when does a film break even at the box office?" brought up the io9 site I put up earlier and this Forbes one ("Keep in mind that to begin to even imagine breaking even a film needs to earn at least twice its production budget at the box office."). There could be more out there, but I think that's the general rule, and Forbes is reliable, more or less. However, I'm not really understanding the "halving the cost" part. You were right in saying a film's gross is split between the studio and theater chains - so, for instance, a $100 million budget film makes $50 million at the worldwide box office, but it had to make $200 million to break even ($100 million to be kept by the studio to cover its negative cost, and thus break even, and the rest for the theater chains). That film would have lost $150 million, because it would have had to make that much to reach $200 million, the "point at which cost or expenses and revenue are equal." Going by your method (or The-Numbers's would say the film incurred no losses for the studio, but if the film didn't break even, how is that so? - Enter Movie (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A film has to make twice what it cost to break even, because the studio only gets half the amount. However, in your sandbox you calculate the loss by subtracting twice the cost from the total box office, but this is wrong. You want to subtract the cost from half the box office. Let's take John Carter as an example: it has been widely reported that Disney racked up a $200 million loss on John Carter, as reported by the BBC and Time. Here are the facts: John Carter earned $280 million against a $250 million budget and $100 million marketing costs ($350 million total).
Your calculation: Box office - (cost*2) = 280-(350*2) = 280-700 = -420
My calculation: (B.O / 2) - cost = (280/2)-350 = 140-350 = -210
From your calculation you get a loss of 420 million, with mine a loss of 210 million, which is in line with the actual figure reported by Disney. Clearly, if Disney only spent $350 million they can't lose more that $400 million. By halving the box office you approximate the figure that Disney actually get, but by doubling the cost you invent a figure that Disney never spent. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I just wrote a long paragraph and had to erase it all because I finally understood what you meant. Haha! I guess I spent all my time on my Sandbox table for no reason. Bummer. You're right, though. I'll look into editing my Sandbox. Thanks. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This list article still has major OR problems

I notice that Wikipedia continues to be named as the sole source of opinion that certain films qualify as 'box office bombs', and certain films rank as the top five box office flops. I also notice this list still has all the same WP:OR problems that prompted an an Articles for Deletion discussion. The discussion was closed as "keep" with the recommendation that a major clean up effort be undertaken. Specifically, every list entry should have a citation to a reliable sources that calls it a box office bomb/failure/flop and real numbers published by reliable sources - not a custom formula invented by Wikipedia editors that gets applied and calculated inconsistently. Is there a reason the talked-about major clean up was abandoned? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it right now with my proposed change above. Though it may seem like a custom formula, I am going by the rule of thumb that "a film needs to earn at least twice its production budget at the box office" to break even; if a film does not break even, it incurs losses; the bigger the loss, the bigger the bomb; and the biggest bombs go on the List. My sources would be BoxOfficeMojo (for production budget and gross info) and Forbes for the rule of thumb stated above. With one support above, I am inching closer to cleaning up the list. Tell me what you think. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Is the Forbes.com "rule of thumb" accepted industry-wide (and world-wide) as the definition of what a movie must lose to qualify as a "box office bomb"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about industry-wide, as there are no reliable standards in assessing a bomb since studios strike different deals with every of their film, but the general estimate of theater chains getting 50% of the gross and studios getting 50% of the gross is citeable. I can provide that. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sahara's losses are incorrect

It clearly states in this link:[3] that it's losses according to Hollywood accounting were at $78 million.

Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Cowboy43 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood accounting has nothing to do with box office bombs.Clicklander (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, it clearly states the losses.You just don't want to see it.

Hollywood accounting has everything to do with box office bombs.You just don't know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.46.238 (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Clicklander is correct. This article is not about profit/loss, it is explicitly about movies that lose money in theaters. The Sahara source projects a 10-year loss of 78 million, and that presumably takes into account the secondary markets like home video and TV. It is clearly spelt out in the lede that this article considers box office losses only, and what you are suggesting is a completely different article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what the article states, Sahara wasn't as big a bomb it makes out to be.Fine if you don't want to change it but I'm technically correct.

Everything that gets posted on here aren't always facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Cowboy43 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not correct at all, you clearly don't understand the mechanics of the film industry and you fail to appreciate the scope of this article. Sahara lost more money than even this article says it did: 240 million was put into its production, distribution and marketing, and it only grossed 120 million; since the exhibitor keeps half of the revenue then that means the studio earned about 60 million from its theatrical run, meaning it was down by 180 million at the end of its theatrical run. That makes it one of the biggest turkeys of all-time. What the LA Times is saying is that home video and TV will chip another 100 million off that loss over a ten year period. But that is besides the point, what the film earns from its secondary markets is irrelevant because this article is not about Hollywood accounting, it's not about profitability, it's about the differential between box office earnings and cost. Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am correct. What makes you such an expert regarding the film industry?Who are you?Probably just some random person online making random accusations.You're no expert in this.Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't mean that I am.

This "List of box office bombs" article makes no sense because what matters at the end of the day are the movies eventually recouping their budget in the long run.

And please, stop posting your opinion as fact because it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Cowboy43 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Having an article about how much a movie loses at the box office doesn't make any less sense than having an article about how much a movie makes at the box office. The box office lists at Box office Mojo aren't about a movie's total income, they are about box office performance; this article isn't about profitability, it's about how much a film underperforms at the box office. Nobody needs to be an expert to understand that this article is not about profitablity. None of the other figures on this list represent profitability, so changing it just for Sahara would make it inconsistent. If you would prefer to see a chart addressing overall profitability I suggest that instead of criticising other people's work you do some yourself and add a profit/loss chart at Hollywood accounting. Betty Logan (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fun Size

An editor had questioned on the Fun Size page as to whether or not it was a box office bomb. The estimated production budget came around to $14 million, while the overall (including marketing), came out to $33 million. The film itself made around $11 million in theaters. Therefore, is it, or is it not a box office bomb? Asd17 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is probably just a flop but not a bomb. Definitely it is not one of the biggest Clicklander (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All the Queen's Men

What do you think of this movie ? According to imdb : budget $25,000,000 / total gross $22,723. Killer Klown (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo seem to think it only cost 15 million, so that would need to be cleared up. Either way it seems to be academic, because 15 or 25 it doesn't meet the 40 million inclusion theshold. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My Proposed List

As mentioned in my previous section, I've been working on changing this List into something more coherent and standardized. Though it's far from complete, and may look like a clutter, I've stopped working on it because there is no point in continuing if others do not agree with my changes. My list organizes it by how much a film bombs based on the general rule that the theater and studio/distributor each take half of the total worldwide gross (I included sources for this "rule"). It does not take into account marketing costs. Click here for my list (ignore the two other tables; the first table is the one I'm working on). Also, suggestions or constructive criticisms would be nice. Thank you. - Enter Movie (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think your proposed changes are sensible. I made some similar suggestions above. It seems eminently sensible to omit marketing so the chart remains consistent, and as I mentioned above I would prefer it if the chart used distributor rental over box office gross since it reflects profitability more accurately. What are your plans for the inflation column? I think we should retain the inflation column, or include a second chart that accounts for inflation so the list doesn't just focus on recent bombs. For instance, we have a nominal chart, an adjusted chart and a timeline at List of most expensive films; I think that would be a reasonable format for this article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was actually modeling my list after the highest-grossing films article. I stopped at 25 for some approval, and I'll continue the other 25 when I have time (definitely before the end of this month). I might make it more aesthetically pleasing by removing the 50 cents off some of the "net losses" and rounding those numbers up as well, and the introduction may have to be clarified by others (like mentioning distributor rentals, etc.). As for the inflation, I would love that kind of list on a separate table, but it requires much more work, (a lot of "Show Preview"-ing, I'd assume) and I'll let others do that. In regards to a timeline, I wouldn't argue against it, but I won't be doing that either. - Enter Movie (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
So I finished the table (and references associated with them), but I only included references to BoxOfficeMojo. I think, for now, it's okay to post up that table, and changes can be made to it by other users when posted up. I won't include any of my introductions (I pretty much copied the "highest-grossing films" word-for-word). - Enter Movie (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
So I'm done... lol, anyone wanna add any input? o__o Enter Movie (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly an improvement, although I had to revert a couple of edits earlier. I'm wondering if there is a way to make the calculation more obvious? Maybe an extra column with the theatrical "rental", so it's more obvious what the budget is being subtracted from. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, those previous edits makes me think others might not understand how the calculation is done; that forumla in the introduction may look a bit intimidating, but I didn't know how else to put it. As for an extra column, how would I explain "rental" in the body? I'm already going a bit overboard on modeling after the highest-grossing films page (admittedly, I copied and pasted with some word altering, so you or others may change it up a bit). Should the distributor rental box be put on this article as well? - Enter Movie (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody at least remove John Carter from here. It makes no sense to have one film judged based on a (possibly inaccurate) marketing budget when the rest are not. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The budget doesn't include marketing. The $250 million was the cost of just making the film. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I ought to read the intro before commenting. I see now how it's worked out although it feels a little arbitrary. Dontreadalone (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not arbitrary, it's approximate; it's a ratio that is used across the industry. It was much more arbitrary before User:Enter Movie revamped the article. I've separated the formula from the lede anyway to try and make it a bit more visible. Betty Logan (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, this Wiki list was used by a news media: [4] Whoot! That's way more comforting to see than when Reuters reported about box office bombs using that messy previous list last year [5]. - Enter Movie (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the formula used for estimating losses is correct. I think it should be either the formula wrong or the description right above. In the description it is stated: "...but industry analysts regularly apply the rule of thumb that film studios take half of the box office receipts, with theaters taking the other half; thus, a film would normally need to make twice its production budget worldwide to break even". If we assume that the last sentence is correct then the formula should be TWG-2PB rather than TWG/2-PB. But I think it is more probable that the last setence is wrong and not the formula. If we assume that the sentence: "film studios take half of the box office receipts" is correct then this does not come to the conclusion that "a film would normally need to make twice its production budget worldwide to break even".Clicklander (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The formula is correct for the claim. By definition if the studio only gets half the receipts then it needs to earn twice its cost to break even because they only keep $1 out of every $2 the film grosses i.e. the studio spends PB and earns TWG/2. Let's take a look at what happens when we use the two formulas. For example, take a film that costs $100 million and grosses $200 million:
TWG/2-PB = 200/2-100 = 100-100 = 0 (the film breaks even)
TWG-2PB = 200-(2x100) = 200-200 = 0 (the film breaks even)
As you can see, the break even point is mathematical identical in both formulas. On the other hand take a film that costs $100 million and makes $0 at the box office:
TWG/2-PB = 0/2-100 = 0-100 = -100 (the film loses $100 million)
TWG-2PB = 0-(2x100) = 0-200 = -200 (the film loses $200 million)
Only the TWG/2-PB formula gives the correct loss figure. The film can not lose $200 million because the studio only spent $100 million. You cannot lose more than you spend. Betty Logan (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the formula is correct, I got somewhow confused. By the way, shouldn't we include the distribution and marketing costs in the formula too? I know that for many films there are no official figures but according to the definition of a bomb, these are taken into account and for some films they contribute significantly to the margin between the box office revenues and the total costs Clicklander (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

R.I.P.D

R.I.P.D makes it into the Top 5.

Universal reports its budget as $130M. Deadline.com reports it as $154M. [1] To date, the movie has taken in roughly $25M, for a net loss of $105-129M. [2]

References

  1. ^ Barnes, Brooks. "Weekend Box Office Reflects a Season of Big-Budget Stumbles". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 7/26/2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ . http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ripd.htm. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

I understand if you want to wait until the movie is out of theaters entirely, but it's going on the list no matter what.

Yeah, I expect that movie, The Lone Ranger, Turbo, and maybe Pacific Rim to make it on the list, but I'd wait a couple of weeks at the least before putting it on here (with a green background shading similar to the highest-grossing films list). - Enter Movie (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's safe to put R.I.P.D up there now. Pacific Rim, happily, was saved by the Chinese box office.
Speaking of which... China only provides Hollywood 25% of its take. I know we don't want to make this more complicated but it might be worth noting somewhere. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'll put up R.I.P.D. on Friday when I update Lone Ranger and White House Down too (or maybe you and others can if you wish). As for the China reference, I think the sentence, "Earnings from outside of the US and Canada are even harder to gauge because of various cost factors, like the 'dollar fluctuat[ing] against foreign currencies' and tariffs" is sufficient. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS

This article is problematic. Most of the films included here, AFAICT, involve WP:SYNTHESIS: we "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". We take the total worldwide box office gross from one source (let's call it "A"), production budget from another source ("B"). Then, using a formula from a third source, we calculate the amount a film sorta kinda maybe lost and compare that to the list of films we've randomly selected to examine this way. Then, we decide that our calculations have determined that these are bombs ("C"). A + B = C is synthesis.

This article should list films that reliable sources directly say were "box office bombs".

Comments before I start cleaning this out? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Welp, I can't argue with that. I guess my hours and days of hard work are long gone. On a side note, how would you clean it out? - Enter Movie (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If we're seriously just going to have a list of quotes from Hollywood Reporter calling random movies bombs then this page is going to turn to shit. I think we should solicit opinions somewhere on what can be done to save it. We could ditch the formula, for instance, and rely on boxoffice.com which provides it's own estimates of publicity and advertising costs. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Routine calculations are permitted per WP:CALC provided there is consensus they are correct. In this case it is basic arithmetic and the formula is simple and sourced so I don't think the calculations themselves pose a problem. I agree we need to make sure we observe WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH though. Perhaps the article should be retitled to "List of money-losing films" or something, since that is what the data is showing; I agree films shouldn't be labelled "bombs" if we can't directly source that. Also, SYNTH is a problem if we are drawing the box office from one source and the budget from another. We should try to use just one source for each calculation: Box Office Mojo can be used in most cases, but in instances where data is missing we can use The Numbers or Variety etc. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem remains. We can't really say they are "money-losing" films as we really have no idea that is the case. Box office figures show how much money was spent on tickets in theaters. How much of that went to the theaters? Did any of the stars take a percentage of gross over salary? Etc. Production budget is likewise not the whole story. Advertising and distribution costs are to be considered. Yes, we have A formula. Yes, we have sources from other sources we assume fit the variables in that formula. At the end of the day, we're left with an article composed entirely of synthesis. The alternative is something more along the lines of List of films considered the worst. Our inclusion criteria would be something along the lines of 1) a notable film (i.e., has a stand alone article) that 2) independent reliable sources directly call a "box office bomb" or say "bombed at the box office". This would change the article in two important ways. It would remove the WP:SYN concerns. Additionally, it will pull in some surprises: older films that "bombed" at the box office but later grew followings as "classic" or "cult classic" films. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the list would become completely vacuous if we relied on journalists calling this and that a "bomb". Sometimes films get called "bombs" simply if they open smaller than expected, so the word doesn't really mean anything unless it is quantified. The purpose of Wikipedia is to impart facts and figures, not newspaper headlines. If you are unhappy with the approach here, maybe the chart could be built around the studio write-downs. Disney took a write down of $200 million on John Carter [6] and $160-190 million on Lone Ranger [7]; likewise Dreamworks took a write down of $87 million on Rise of the Guardians [8]. I'm sure we can probably did up more write-downs, since they are reported to the shareholders, and if they are sizeable the media pick up on them. They don't quantify the film's whole loss though because a film can generate income beyond the next fiscal quarter, but it is probably the most objective and accurate way of measuring financial failure. Betty Logan (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Betty that converting to a list of what the media has called bombs would be a step backward. It would be completely unfocused and unmanageable.
Write downs is a fair idea but could we find enough info to make this comprehensive? We could also compile a simple budget - gross list although this would also be partial. Dontreadalone (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Another vote against converting to a list of what the media has called "bombs" since it's such a subjective term that is thrown around all too often. Right now this list is quantified; if we switched to that style it would be qualified. As previously noted, WP:CALC means that we can do simple arithmetic (Budget - Box Office = Loss), but we ought to be consistent about the sources for the budget and box office gross. I'd be alright with renaming the page to a more neutral "List of movies that have lost money" or something similar. If we really want a qualified list, we could create a separate page named "List of movies that the media has labeled box office bombs". -Thunderforge (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are doing simple math. That is not the problem. We are taking "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYN What we need here is a reliable source that says "Dumb Teen Sex Comedy was a box office bomb." Instead, we have source A gives a formula for saying a film lost money, sources B and C give numbers, putting those three sources together, we decide a film was a "box office bomb". Hell, with that level of WP:SYNTHESIS we could say Al Gore was elected president. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Late to the game, but I agree with SummerPhD 110%, this article is a policy disaster. Within the very text of the article, an original formula is presented based on a synthesis of sources and the formula itself requires a further synthesis of sources to come to an original conclusion. This is the very definition of original research, however thought-out or justified. If it's a reliable and accurate formula, publish it in a third-party, reliable source, and we'll use that source to make a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, it may be necessary to reacquaint ourselves with what Wikipedia is and is not.

The arguments opposed to clean up seem to be: a) it's a routine calculation. b) a list of sources calling the movie a bomb would be bad (vacuous, unfocused, step backwards, etc)

While it's true that the formula is basic arithmetic, the problem is that there is no strong justification for using that formula. None of the provided sources use that formula, although the formula is based on estimates made in those sources (see: WP:SYNTHESIS). The requirements under WP:CALC for a calculation to be considered routine are a consensus that the results are obvious, correct, and reflect the sources. If the results were obvious, it would not require a subsection of this article devoted to explaining how we come to the results (again, we're not talking about the arithmetic, we're talking about the formula). The results are also incorrect as even this article admits they are estimates. Finally, the results do not reflect any of the sources as, by it's very definition, they require a synthesis of sources unrelated to the final result. There is nothing routine about this calculation. It's an original formula that, as far as I can tell, was created by Wikipedia.

Finally, any argument against building this list from third-party sources is completely ineffectual. Regardless of our opinions on the matter, Wikipedia is built upon reliable, third-party sources regardless of whether or not those sources are true (WP:TRUTH). While I understand that this article contains good information and I see the value, it's not verifiable. It's original research based on synthesis and it doesn't belong on WP. It should be moved somewhere else.63.149.124.133 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

2013 Oldboy remake

The recent remake of Oldboy, directed by Spike Lee and starring Josh Brolin and Elizabeth Olsen, was made on a budget of $30 million and made less than $2 million at the box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.40.35 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Add percentages to the list?

%loss would be much easier to skim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeidein (talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of this, although we may run into issues for some of the movies that have a range in their budget. It should be clear though that the table is ranked by total loss, not by percent loss. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is Hugo Here

The budget for the film was listed as $150—170,000,000 whereas it was stated to make $185,770,16 meaning the film made a profit and not a loss as the chart claims.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact there are several films that are recording a loss when the Worldwide gross is higher than the budget. It appears to be a problem with this list since at the current time it implies that films that made more money that it cost to make it lost money. Some of these need to be removed or a better explaination needs to be provided as to how the film that have a higher gross than budget in lost money.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It is clearly explained in the "estimating loss" section. It even provides a formula. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I said. This is synthesis. We do not have reliable sources saying these are "box office bombs". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we know how you feel on that subject, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the complaint here. If you wish to see progress in that direction maybe you could respond to the solution I put forward in my reply to your concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

47 Ronin

So when do we add the latest Keanu Reeves blockbuster? $225 million budget and a $145 million gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.68.135 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-universals-47-ronin-667771

mr peabody and sherman

Is Mr._Peabody_%26_Sherman a box office bomb how much has it lost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Budget: $145 million
Box office: $272.9 million
That's one profitable "bomb". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

so it lost money how much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Box office > budget. It did not lose money. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did dreamworks take a write down then? (What is is a write down) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A write down is where you record an anticipated loss before it happens. Say you release Avatar and 47 Ronin in the same quarter, it might be beneficial to record a loss for 47 Ronin in the quarter you release Avatar since it will still come out as a very profitable quarter. It means you won't record a loss in the next quarter and will stop the share price from dropping. A write down is usually a projection of the total loss so will probably be smaller than the box-office loss (since it factors in projected home video revenue and TV sales) but possibly larger than the eventual loss since the studios only project earnings for up to 10 years and a film will continue making money beyond that. It will also include money a studio spent on marketing too. In truth, a write down will be far more accurate than our figures because they are proper financial predictions. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

animated films

Can we have a animated films flops only no live action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

muppet less wanted

Did muppets most wanted flop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

New one

Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return was a bomb. It made 18 million on an 85 million budget.

http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/legends-of-oz-dorothys-return-2014?q=Legends%20of%20Oz:%20Dorothy

--Dagko (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo and Forbes state Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return had a budget of $70 million. Using the calculator that would put the films loss at $60668987, which would knock Hard Rain off for the number 50 spot. I'll make the change momentarily. Freikorp (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not Enough

I feel as if not all box office bombs have been added to the list. Films like Blackhat and Teacher's Pet have dealt with box office bombs and aren't on the list. I don't know whose idea it was to do such a half-assed job making such a short and incoherent list, but it should be fixed. - Theironminer (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Teacher's pet only cost $10 million, so obviously it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on the list, since the film ranked at #50 lost over $60 million. As for Blackhat it has only just started its roll-out so we don't know how much money it will lose. Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Too early to add Jupiter Ascending?

Jupiter Ascending is still rolling out in countries, but according to BoxOfficeMojo, right now it has a $115,407,495 world-wide gross against a $176 million budget, giving a current loss of $118,296,252. Do we wait until a film is released in all countries, or can we go ahead and add it now? (As an aside, Blackhat will miss this list, as adding JA would put it at #51.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Still has China and Japan to open, so I think it is too early. China especially has very eclectic tastes (Transformers 4 is the highest-grossing film there, so it wouldn't surprise me if Jupiter Ascending earned enough to avoid this list). Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. $230 million is the gross to watch for that would get JA off this list. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A flaw that needs addressing?

I appreciate a LOT of discussion has gone into getting some uniformity to the criteria here, and that ROI is no longer used, however this has led to a situation where 4 films that have grossed over $200m are in the list, and some have definitely got people through the doors, just not enough to justify their production budgets. My issue is I came across this film - The First $20 Million Is Always the Hardest, which in 2002, backed by Fox on a $17m budget only brought in $5,491. As far as proportions or ROI go, this is off the scale bad. It's not a low budget film that only grossed a few quid because of limited resources, marketing and exposure. It was made by a major studio, and barely made 0.03% return. This is outrageously poor and I believe fully justifies this film's inclusion on a list here.Rayman60 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think ROI has ever been included here, at least not while I have participated on the article. Generally though "bombs" deal in "absolutes" and involve losing a huge sum of money rather than a large percentage of the investment. The list of "bombs" here is basically the opposite to the List of highest-grossing films, and we don't rank films by profitability there because it is beyond the scope of the article. That's not to say ROI shouldn't be addressed somewhere on Wikipedia but I'm not convinced this is the right place to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is a film that cost £300m and made £270m, which is obviously a poor investment, but not that bad (especially considering 'Hollywood Accounting' and revenues from DVDs/streaming etc eventually bringing it up) will lose £30m (I appreciate there's a formula which will give a different result), and that will always be worse than a 2002 film that lost $17m, however for a film to cost that much and only gross $5,491 is so pitiful, it's absolutely a bomb, especially in comparison to the film that took £270m. This is why I think criteria can/should be tweaked to address this.Rayman60 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
By the same token a film that costs $1 million and makes $17 million has a higher ROI than Avatar, but it has not made more money, and as such it is not included on the various "highest-grossing" lists hosted on Wikipedia. The purpose of this list is to rank films by how much money they lose, not by how profitable/unprofitable they are, which is a separate topic. If you believe this is an aspect of film finance that should be covered then I suggest creating an article that specifically addresses film profitability. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Battleship included?

Even though it did gross $303 million, the studio still lost millions on it. So why haven't you included this? The movie cost $220 million to make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditch Brodie (talk • contribs) 2015-10-28T11:13:26

Fantastic Four (2015)

I previously added Fant4stic to the list for having a roughly-estimated loss of $60-100 million, but it was removed due to the $60 million estimate sitting at the low end of the scale. Recently, there's been a clarification that the official estimate for the movie's loss is said to have been over $80 million. With this in mind, I was wondering if FF's place on the chart could be added to the list again. 2605:6001:E7C9:0:1CB7:AFF4:1307:E0C4 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The table does not document how much the film loses for the studio, it documents how much of the budget the film failed to recover at the box office. These are fundamentally different quantities. Since the film grossed $160 million and only cost $120 million then it fails to meet the inclusion criteria. By way of comparison, The Lone Ranger lost around $160 million for Disney, but only failed to recover about $100 million at the box office. Adding Fantastic Four to the table with the *real* loss would mbe inconsistent with the other films on the list, so it can't be added to the article, at least as it currently stands. We recognize that this is a serious shortcoming and the article will hopefully be overhauled in the forthcoming weeks to make it more accurate about how it documents loss. There is discussion about how best to approach this directly in the section above (see #The_problem_with_original_research) if you have any views or suggestions. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Box office bombs ranked by revenue/budget ratio

I prepared a list of these, based on the numbers on the main page please feel free to add on the main page

Name Revenue/budget ratio The Adventures of Pluto Nash 7,1% Gigli 9,6% Monkeybone 10,2% Town & Country 11,5% The Great Raid 13,5% Dudley Do-Right 14,2% A Sound of Thunder 14,6% Supernova 16,5% Zoom 16,5% Chill Factor 16,8%

13 November 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.206.123 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See #A flaw that needs addressing?. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbers...?

I realize this table is a work in progress with issues still in need of ironing out, but I'm wondering where some of the numbers come from. For example, Tomorrowland, #28; the budget is listed as $180M and the b.o. as $209,035,668. The losses are listed as $75,482,166. I'm wondering where this number came from(?) The first two numbers appear to be taken from the accompanying Box Office Mojo ref. There is a second ref from the Hollywood Reporter that states the film "could lose up to $140M", (which makes sense because the film's article here states that the film cost a total of $330M (with marketing costs) against a $190M budget). Neither source list this very specific number of $75,482,166 as a loss. Am I missing something? Can someone clarify this? Thanks. - theWOLFchild 04:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Ah... nevermind. After going through the article again, it seems the "estimated loss" was not cited from any sources, but actually calculated using the so-called "equation, used by industry analysts". The equation with no supporting refs, just an OR tag. All-righty then... - theWOLFchild 00:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs/Archive_1&oldid=1218456254"