This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blockbuster (entertainment) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
On 28 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Blockbuster. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The term was in use prior to "Star Wars". I remember it being used in the early 1970s, although perhaps the earliest use I can remember is that in the 1970s rock hit "Blockbuster" by The Sweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.183.185 ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 April 2005. (UTC)
SOMEONE PLEASE RUN SPELL CHECK ON THIS "ARTICLE"! It's horrid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.148.52 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find any description in any dictionary or anywhere online that referred to thatres going out of business as the etymology for blockbuster. Even if this were the case, it would only have acquired that meaning after the use of it in WWII to describe block-busting bombs (bombs capable of destroying an entire city block). It also certainly predates Star Wars, and I if it must be mentioned that a lot of people think that the term comes from people stretched around the block, it should be done so in the context that this is incorrect (unless ofcourse some further research shows that to be the case).
Charles (Kznf) 00:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
124.186.236.172 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris Slee ( http://www.geocities.com/chris_slee/)
I was taught in film school that the term blockbuster originated in the 1930 and 40s. Cinemas used to buy films in monthly or quarterly blocks rather than individually. A cinema could only buy from their own supplier/distributor. Anyone who bought from another distributor had the block contract cut. When Hollywood started producing big movies such as Gone With The Wind, the cinemas rose up and revolted until they were allowed by the studio/distributors to buy movies outside their blocks - ie: blockbusters.
The modern idea of the summer blockbuster, we were taught, dates to about the time of - if not the actual release of Jaws. The film's big budget and popularity started a trend inn which every stuio tried to match Jaws success. Jaws was released at a time when studio were complain, like today, of declining film profits from a jaded public who simply didn't go to the cinema anymore. It also fits in with the one thing the studios figured TV couldn't do - big explosions on screen.
It looks to me like the only thing needed from Blockbuster motion picture is the external links; the content seems to be covered better here. Jgm 03:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Another term blockbuster may have been used for was in the early eras when a "family block" was sold to a minority family. It was not limited to african-americans, but any non-white immigrant at the time.
This is a circulated "myth" in the real-estate world.
206.248.176.154 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Saporis
In the last paragraph, Rocky is called a satirical documentary. I don't think it was one the last time I checked. Also, mockumentary might be a better word than "satirical documentary", to describe Borat. Rob-R-TOR-3 ( talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how I'd source it, but it's been my understanding that "blockbuster" was first used in the movie industry to describe Jaws, and because it was one of the first movies where the line to get in went around the block.
Seeing how nothing else is sourced, should we add this possible definition? Ynot4tony ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jaws was the first film to exceed $100,000,000 in ticket sales and for a time this was the point at which a film could be designated a blockbuster in North America.[3] However earlier films such as Gone with the Wind (1939) and The Sound of Music (1965) easily passed this threshold.[4]"
How can earlier films have passed the $100,000,000 threshold if Jaws was the first film to pass this threshold? Does this have anything to do with the difference between 'theatrical rentals' and 'domestic gross' ( http://www.ldsfilm.com/misc/lds_Top5_boxoffice.html)? AstroMark ( talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It has to do with theatrical rentals check 1975 in film under events. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:601A:4900:18E9:50AC:B9A1:A00F (
talk) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Profit margin and ROI aren't the same, and who did the math to with 266000% that's insanely wrong. Also Deadpool isn't a low budget movie comparable to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.53.137 ( talk) 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Certain major trades in professional sports are described as "Blockbuster trades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.6 ( talk) 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
How do you know if a movie is financially successful? I'm guessing that the box office sales have to top the budget. But if a film makes 1 million more then the budget does that mean the film is considered financially successful?
Does it matter what number the budget is? you say to double the budget when it hits theatres?
How do you know if a film is profitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.208.254 ( talk) 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Popculturewoohoo! ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)== Pop culture ==
When it comes to films, music, tv shows, books etc how do you know if certain things are successful with the money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popculturewoohoo! ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
– This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:BROAD. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Late April 8th, I added this to the article:
Extended content
|
---|
A subgenre of the blockbuster is the " intellectual blockbuster", that may feature plots that are puzzles, and nonlinear narratives. [1] While the term is not exclusively applied to films, [2] [3] [4] [5] it often is, with filmmaker Majid Majidi considering Christopher Nolan the phenomenon's creator. [1] David Fear, writing for Rolling Stone, considers Nolan's Inception an example. [6] Novelist D. Harlan Wilson applied the term to Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. [7] Other examples are Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity, [8] and Logan. [9] References
|
Early April 9th, my edit was
reverted by editor
Betty Logan, with edit summary: "A mix of non-reliable sources and synthesis. Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." On their Talk page,
I asked if none of my material was usable, to which they replied: "You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror."
At first, I was thinking, "synthesis", fair enough, I have no sources at hand that, for example, give a listing of subgenres of the blockbuster, let alone that include "intellectual blockbuster"; maybe one day there are and we can always (re)add the subgenre to the article later. But I believe it is useful for this Talk page - and/or, perhaps eventually, its archive - to include the term "intellectual blockbuster", the above material that was added and removed, and my final thoughts.
First, I object to the phrase "non-reliable sources" that is part of the reason given for the reversion. Of the 9 sources, two are official websites of persons whose occupations may give their views on (intellectual) blockbusters some credibility, namely Iranian filmmaker
Majid Majidi, and novelist
D. Harlan Wilson; both of whom are also notable enough to have their own articles on our wiki. The other seven sources are the
Los Angeles Review of Books, the
Wheeler Centre,
Chicago,
Inverse,
Rolling Stone,
Chicago Reader, and
Slashfilm. To dismiss all 9 sources as "non-reliable", even when taking context into account, seems too harsh. When I see edits such as my contribution, it is clear to me that such edits' authors put effort into providing proper sources. I believe a more tactful edit summary would be preferable when reverting such edits.
Then the remark, "Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." When I read "creator of the “intellectual blockbuster” phenomenon" in the source, I personally did not read this as a claim by Majidi that intellectual blockbusters started with Nolan. Key being the word "phenomenon", per its common usage. But more importantly, my material states that Majidi considering Nolan the phenomenon's creator, which is a simple statement of fact. Editor Betty Logan essentially justifies their reversion by stating: "I, editor extraordinaire, disagree with Majidi." The editor also did not back up with a reliable source their claim that
Stanley Kubrick has created an intellectual blockbuster, nor that
Lawrence of Arabia is one. All while, apparently, acknowledging that the "intellectual blockbuster" does exist, through "e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia".
Finally, I think the sources make it sufficiently clear that "intellectual blockbuster", these words together, have a specific meaning that goes beyond merely being blockbusters with
intellectual elements. They do this through the use of (mostly double) quotes, e.g. Slashfilm's "Logan was also a perfect example of an "intellectual blockbuster."" and Rolling Stone's "Given post-Batman carte blanche, he [Nolan] proved that “intellectual blockbuster” was not a contradiction in terms." By the way, here you can see that Rolling Stone too acknowledges the phenomenon that I mentioned above. Nolan; not Kubrick or Lean or whoever.
--
62.166.252.25 (
talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The " intellectual blockbuster" is a collocation that feature plots that are puzzles and/or nonlinear narratives.is nonsensical and demonstrates the extent to which this is based on WP:Improper editorial synthesis. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blockbuster (entertainment) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
On 28 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Blockbuster. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The term was in use prior to "Star Wars". I remember it being used in the early 1970s, although perhaps the earliest use I can remember is that in the 1970s rock hit "Blockbuster" by The Sweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.183.185 ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 April 2005. (UTC)
SOMEONE PLEASE RUN SPELL CHECK ON THIS "ARTICLE"! It's horrid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.148.52 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't find any description in any dictionary or anywhere online that referred to thatres going out of business as the etymology for blockbuster. Even if this were the case, it would only have acquired that meaning after the use of it in WWII to describe block-busting bombs (bombs capable of destroying an entire city block). It also certainly predates Star Wars, and I if it must be mentioned that a lot of people think that the term comes from people stretched around the block, it should be done so in the context that this is incorrect (unless ofcourse some further research shows that to be the case).
Charles (Kznf) 00:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
124.186.236.172 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris Slee ( http://www.geocities.com/chris_slee/)
I was taught in film school that the term blockbuster originated in the 1930 and 40s. Cinemas used to buy films in monthly or quarterly blocks rather than individually. A cinema could only buy from their own supplier/distributor. Anyone who bought from another distributor had the block contract cut. When Hollywood started producing big movies such as Gone With The Wind, the cinemas rose up and revolted until they were allowed by the studio/distributors to buy movies outside their blocks - ie: blockbusters.
The modern idea of the summer blockbuster, we were taught, dates to about the time of - if not the actual release of Jaws. The film's big budget and popularity started a trend inn which every stuio tried to match Jaws success. Jaws was released at a time when studio were complain, like today, of declining film profits from a jaded public who simply didn't go to the cinema anymore. It also fits in with the one thing the studios figured TV couldn't do - big explosions on screen.
It looks to me like the only thing needed from Blockbuster motion picture is the external links; the content seems to be covered better here. Jgm 03:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Another term blockbuster may have been used for was in the early eras when a "family block" was sold to a minority family. It was not limited to african-americans, but any non-white immigrant at the time.
This is a circulated "myth" in the real-estate world.
206.248.176.154 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Saporis
In the last paragraph, Rocky is called a satirical documentary. I don't think it was one the last time I checked. Also, mockumentary might be a better word than "satirical documentary", to describe Borat. Rob-R-TOR-3 ( talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how I'd source it, but it's been my understanding that "blockbuster" was first used in the movie industry to describe Jaws, and because it was one of the first movies where the line to get in went around the block.
Seeing how nothing else is sourced, should we add this possible definition? Ynot4tony ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jaws was the first film to exceed $100,000,000 in ticket sales and for a time this was the point at which a film could be designated a blockbuster in North America.[3] However earlier films such as Gone with the Wind (1939) and The Sound of Music (1965) easily passed this threshold.[4]"
How can earlier films have passed the $100,000,000 threshold if Jaws was the first film to pass this threshold? Does this have anything to do with the difference between 'theatrical rentals' and 'domestic gross' ( http://www.ldsfilm.com/misc/lds_Top5_boxoffice.html)? AstroMark ( talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It has to do with theatrical rentals check 1975 in film under events. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:601A:4900:18E9:50AC:B9A1:A00F (
talk) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Profit margin and ROI aren't the same, and who did the math to with 266000% that's insanely wrong. Also Deadpool isn't a low budget movie comparable to the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.53.137 ( talk) 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The very last paragraph of the article is wildly inaccurate and unnecessary. The Person who wrote about Tarnation doesn't understand ROI or profit margin. profit margin can't go above 100%, think about it (if you spend money on a product then your income will be less than your sales therefore your income will never reach 100%, unless you spent 0 dollars. They did the formula right for ROI at first but then divided it by 2 for some reason. also if you read the article, in the first paragraph it says the investors of the film spent another 400 thousand to prepare the film for theaters. "The film was initially made for a total budget of $218.32, using free iMovie software on a Mac.[3][4] Film critic Roger Ebert, an early supporter, said $400,000 more was eventually spent by the distributor on sound, print, score and music/clip clearances to bring the film to theaters.[5]", so the actual ROI is 199%, while napoleon dynamite has an actual ROI of 11425%. I'm in my third year of finance, so I know this stuff. I would just delete the paragraph or remove the stuff about Tarnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant1984 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Certain major trades in professional sports are described as "Blockbuster trades". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.6 ( talk) 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
How do you know if a movie is financially successful? I'm guessing that the box office sales have to top the budget. But if a film makes 1 million more then the budget does that mean the film is considered financially successful?
Does it matter what number the budget is? you say to double the budget when it hits theatres?
How do you know if a film is profitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.208.254 ( talk) 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Popculturewoohoo! ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)== Pop culture ==
When it comes to films, music, tv shows, books etc how do you know if certain things are successful with the money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popculturewoohoo! ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 22:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
– This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:BROAD. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Late April 8th, I added this to the article:
Extended content
|
---|
A subgenre of the blockbuster is the " intellectual blockbuster", that may feature plots that are puzzles, and nonlinear narratives. [1] While the term is not exclusively applied to films, [2] [3] [4] [5] it often is, with filmmaker Majid Majidi considering Christopher Nolan the phenomenon's creator. [1] David Fear, writing for Rolling Stone, considers Nolan's Inception an example. [6] Novelist D. Harlan Wilson applied the term to Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. [7] Other examples are Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity, [8] and Logan. [9] References
|
Early April 9th, my edit was
reverted by editor
Betty Logan, with edit summary: "A mix of non-reliable sources and synthesis. Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." On their Talk page,
I asked if none of my material was usable, to which they replied: "You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror."
At first, I was thinking, "synthesis", fair enough, I have no sources at hand that, for example, give a listing of subgenres of the blockbuster, let alone that include "intellectual blockbuster"; maybe one day there are and we can always (re)add the subgenre to the article later. But I believe it is useful for this Talk page - and/or, perhaps eventually, its archive - to include the term "intellectual blockbuster", the above material that was added and removed, and my final thoughts.
First, I object to the phrase "non-reliable sources" that is part of the reason given for the reversion. Of the 9 sources, two are official websites of persons whose occupations may give their views on (intellectual) blockbusters some credibility, namely Iranian filmmaker
Majid Majidi, and novelist
D. Harlan Wilson; both of whom are also notable enough to have their own articles on our wiki. The other seven sources are the
Los Angeles Review of Books, the
Wheeler Centre,
Chicago,
Inverse,
Rolling Stone,
Chicago Reader, and
Slashfilm. To dismiss all 9 sources as "non-reliable", even when taking context into account, seems too harsh. When I see edits such as my contribution, it is clear to me that such edits' authors put effort into providing proper sources. I believe a more tactful edit summary would be preferable when reverting such edits.
Then the remark, "Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." When I read "creator of the “intellectual blockbuster” phenomenon" in the source, I personally did not read this as a claim by Majidi that intellectual blockbusters started with Nolan. Key being the word "phenomenon", per its common usage. But more importantly, my material states that Majidi considering Nolan the phenomenon's creator, which is a simple statement of fact. Editor Betty Logan essentially justifies their reversion by stating: "I, editor extraordinaire, disagree with Majidi." The editor also did not back up with a reliable source their claim that
Stanley Kubrick has created an intellectual blockbuster, nor that
Lawrence of Arabia is one. All while, apparently, acknowledging that the "intellectual blockbuster" does exist, through "e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia".
Finally, I think the sources make it sufficiently clear that "intellectual blockbuster", these words together, have a specific meaning that goes beyond merely being blockbusters with
intellectual elements. They do this through the use of (mostly double) quotes, e.g. Slashfilm's "Logan was also a perfect example of an "intellectual blockbuster."" and Rolling Stone's "Given post-Batman carte blanche, he [Nolan] proved that “intellectual blockbuster” was not a contradiction in terms." By the way, here you can see that Rolling Stone too acknowledges the phenomenon that I mentioned above. Nolan; not Kubrick or Lean or whoever.
--
62.166.252.25 (
talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The " intellectual blockbuster" is a collocation that feature plots that are puzzles and/or nonlinear narratives.is nonsensical and demonstrates the extent to which this is based on WP:Improper editorial synthesis. TompaDompa ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)