This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lightyear (film) 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 article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
I believe it should be mentioned that at this time, the Lightyear trailer uploaded by the Pixar Youtube channel has 8.3 million views. The 83 million views that is sourced in the Hollywood Deadline article is erroneous. 100.2.137.190 ( talk) 05:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Soundtrack":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Should the controversy over Pixar's decision to include homosexual content in children's entertainment be covered? 人族 ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Kiss controversy should be included, the wikipedia article for Blank Check has a section about kiss controversy, and that controversy didn't arise until 2009, 15 years after the film had been released. Lightyear on the other hand the controversy is before it's been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:F19B:B0ED:3A25:A86D ( talk) 04:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a Leak in Twitter and Uzo Aduba's Hawthorne Character First Name is not Alicia, But Alisha. Link here https://twitter.com/bttfrare/status/1511722927841943553?cxt=HHwWgoCpjcr_2_opAAAA -- Happiness is Simple ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Lightyear will have it's Special Screening at Annecy Festival. The Runtime is revealed to be 1 Hour, 45 Minutes -- Happiness is Simple ( talk) 05:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting to link Lightyear (soundtrack) in the music section. 110.225.253.148 ( talk) 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BOM":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There are some people claiming that in a post-credits scene, Zurg survived the explosion. I have seen the movie, which has two post-credits scenes and neither of them have Zurg. Or he may have been hiding in the background of one of them. Red4Smash ( talk) 16:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone please change “raised a daughter” to “raised a son”? Alicia Hawthorne raised a son with her wife. That son then had a daughter (her granddaughter, Izzy). Thanks 125.168.134.152 ( talk) 11:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
TLDR, the plot doesn't belong in the cast section. Alright, User:InfiniteNexus, let's have the talk. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'spoiler' because that's not the primary concern here. The cast section isn't the place to discuss the plot of the film; and I would be very surprised if Brolin is billed anywhere as Zurg/Old Buzz. All of the other cast members have a very brief description that doesn't delve into the plot of the film; I don't see why Zurg should be different. I think James Earl Jones as Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back is a perfectly relevant example, as it doesn't list him as "Luke's father" in the cast section; that's a plot point that is discussed in the plot section. Another example, Avengers: Endgame doesn't list Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Old Steve Rogers, nor does it delve into him being aged up; that point is, however, discussed in the plot section. I suspect if you were to look at the billing for this film you wouldn't find Brolin listed as anything other than Zurg; that's all I've been able to find. While WP doesn't engage in spoiler warnings, it does seem like we should keep the plot in the relevant places. DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Zurg / Old Buzzin the end credits, so we should mirror that here. Per common practice on Wikipedia articles, cast listings go
Real name / Alias, so he should be credited as
Buzz Lightyear / Zurg. Buzz Lightyear is his real name, Zurg is his alias. It's really that simple. I don't know why The Empire Strikes Back doesn't mention Vader is Luke's father, I'm not a Star Wars fan and don't edit their articles, but Avengers: Endgame does not say
Steve Rogers / Old Stevebecause it doesn't make sense. "Old Steve" is not an alias. The plot point that he aged up is also not crucial to be mentioned. To invoke WP:SPOILER again, it is not acceptable to remove plot details from anywhere on an article simply because it "spoils" the movie. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The opening text of the film states: "In 1995, a boy named Andy got a Buzz Lightyear toy for his birthday. It was from his favorite movie. This is that movie." It does not say Andy watched the film in 1995, and Andy watching Lightyear is not depicted in Toy Story. jhsounds ( talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I created a controversies section due to the recent discussion of the movie. [ This section] was reverted twice without explanation by @ CreecregofLife: and a third time with the explanation of WP:UNDUE. I am willing to compromise and concede on the lead, however I believe a section is very due as multiple news organizations have commented on this issue for weeks, and even the lead actor has commented multiple times on it. Some journals have attributed the disappointing box office numbers to this controversy as well, so only including one sentence at the end of the critical response section does not explain this situation well enough. Please comment your thoughts and support/opposition to inclusion. Thanks, Anon0098 ( talk) 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".) and, like has been pointed out above, all the pertinent information is already in the article in various sections. - Brojam ( talk) 17:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
A dispute over whether Lightyear can be called a "box-office bomb" has now led to this article being locked down, which seems like an overreaction, but we should probably resolve this so that editing can be restored. So, the issue seems to be this text, which uses the term "box office bomb", which CreecregofLife doesn't like because it's "exaggerative language", and it's too soon to know whether this is a bomb or not. Although CreecregofLife then re-added the text themselves, now without the references, so maybe there's no longer a dispute at all? Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
“We should additionally consider unfortunate pushback over the film’s same-gender relationship from ultra-conversative families, who have also been educated for two years to expect Pixar movies on streaming sooner rather than later,” says Robbins, referencing Disney’s decision to send multiple Pixar titles to Disney+ since the pandemic. “The combination of those two sentiments seem to have instilled a ‘We’ll watch it before letting our kids see it’ mentality in some communities, particularly those with strict religious views, in contrast to the filmmakers’ intentions of championing equality and representation for everyone.”
— Pamela McClintock, in an article from The Hollywood Reporter [1]
And1987 ( talk) 19:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You can objectively say it's a bomb by standard criteria - it lost millions. You can argue journalists are using kid gloves because it's a Disney project and would use stronger language for another company, and that may be true, but it's irrelevant. We mirror what sources say in proportion to both their amount and quality. The sources use more careful language - saying it has "underperformed" or " underwhelmed" and such. If sources outright call it a "box office bomb", then include it. I actually did a bunch of searches specifically to see if any articles called it a bomb but didn't find any. The only ones using very strong language are ones that are partisan or blogs, which can be outright ignored. The language of Hollywood reporter, LA Times, NY Times, etc is what we go with.
In another example for an article I edited, I only called Carrot Top's " Chairman of the Board" a box office bomb specifically only after I found two high quality sources saying as such. It's not just a matter of looking at the box office compared to its budget. If it was, that verges into original research territory. It's not our job to say what films did well or did not, and we're certainly not experts when it comes to the economics of film making. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
it can't be a bomb if it was intentionally tanked by a specific demographic.Korny O'Near ( talk) 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed"". While the onus is on us for inclusion, you seem to be the only one vehemently against inclusion. And since your arguments are, in my opinion, extremely weak since you refuse to provide sources of your own, I believe consensus is significantly in favor of inclusion. We'll see what the admin who locked the page says though. Anon0098 ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like my most recent edit undone. I don’t remember how it happened, but it was an accident and antithetical to what I believe should be CreecregofLife ( talk) 17:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. the gross for films changes daily. Can we change the gross according to box office mojo and the numbers? Evope ( talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Evope ( talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In light of overwhelming support for the usage of the word "bomb" and CreecregofLife's weak arguments against, please lift the Protection status with the consensus of using "box office bomb" in place of "box office disappointment" Anon0098 ( talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wanted to update the box office numbers to $160.6 million that was reported in the numbers website that’s used as a source Db9780 ( talk) 22:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ CreecregofLife: This is getting ridiculous. I'm going to need you to cite sources saying this movie was not a disappointment, or some logical reason you are opposing this since you refuse to use edit summaries properly. I can at least see the argument that this does not fit into a bomb specifically, but virtually all sources admit this was a disappointment, failure, flop, etc, and from what I can see you have made no argument against that until this point. While I really am trying to assume good faith here, I really have a hard time understanding why you are still opposing this. In order to avoid a continued edit war I will not reinsert the information, but failure to provide additional sources or at least some good argument will result in me reinserting the material since while "bomb" was only accepted by the majority of editors, "disappointment" or some variation of that was approved by everyone. Anon0098 ( talk) 16:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"bomb" is premature, sources outdated.. If this is not who you are referring to please give a name as I honestly dont know who you are referring to. And again, please give sources saying this was not a disappointment Anon0098 ( talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Korny O'Near: @ CreecregofLife: @ And1987: @ Harizotoh9: @ Crumpled Fire: @ Anon0098: @ HumanxAnthro: Hello, regarding our discussion in the past few days I thought we had already reached a consensus on box office bomb being an adequate term. Support/Oppose question: Do you support this film being described as a box-office bomb?
Definition according to Wikipedia: A box-office bomb, box-office flop, or box-office failure is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. Although any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed", the term is more frequently used for major studio releases that were highly anticipated, extensively marketed and expensive to produce that ultimately failed commercially. DemianStratford ( talk) 05:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Addendum:
(feel free to add more), Anon0098 ( talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I really have to stress that we and our opinions do not matter. We don't write articles, sources do. There is zero consensus among experts and journalists that it is a box office bomb. The highest quality sources don't refer to it as a bomb, but use other terminology. CNN for instances says " Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ fizzles at the box office". These are the sources you put the WP:WEIGHT for. You have to cherry pick very hard and cite some very low quality sources to find people calling it a bomb.
Online only sites like Looper have have only been around for like 10 years, and being online only they have a tendency for lower quality journalism and sensationalism. I have a strong distrust of these kind of sources for this reason and will always consider older more traditional media higher quality. They have a longer history of higher quality journalism, and are less prone to sensationalism because online is only a fraction of their revenue. Yes, there is a big difference between Looper and CNN, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, Associated Press, etc.
Additionally, looking at the definition of box office bomb and then applying that to this film is the definition of "original research" which is strictly forbidden on wikipedia. Our personal opinions and analysis do not matter, as Wikipedia is a summarization of high quality scholarship. User:Harizotoh9 02:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add an additional reference to this sentence, "Some box office analysts theorized that family audiences were reluctant to attend theaters in general due to COVID-19 concerns, although this was seemingly disproven after Minions: The Rise of Gru opened to $108 million in the U.S. and Canada two weeks later." with this.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rubin |first=Rebecca |date=2022-07-05 |title=Why ‘Minions: The Rise of Gru’ Thrived at the Box Office While ‘Lightyear’ Flailed |url=https://variety.com/2022/film/news/minions-the-rise-of-gru-box-office-record-lightyear-1235309097/ |access-date=2022-07-05 |website=Variety |language=en}}</ref> And1987 ( talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Change "The film made $6.6 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." in #Box_office with "The film made $6.5 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." Also, please change the citation that follows the sentence with this source from Box Office Mojo: <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/2022W26/|title=Domestic 2022 Weekend 26|website=[[Box Office Mojo]]|access-date=July 6, 2022}}</ref> These are the Monday actuals. A person in Georgia ( talk) 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone change the box office gross? On box office mojo and the numbers shows the daily gross. -- Evope ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Evope ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The current Plot refers to Zurg as being from “an alternate timeline”. But in fact Zurg is from the original timeline, while Buzz’s timeline became the alternate when Zurg traveled back in time.
Therefore I suggest the following edit starting with “Following an encounter …”:
Following an encounter, Zurg abducts Buzz, bringing him aboard his ship. Zurg reveals that he is an older Buzz from the future who has now traveled back in time, thereby creating a new alternate timeline inhabited by both of them. In the original timeline, following his successful hyperspace test, Buzz faced arrest from Burnside’s forces, but escaped. Bsoo ( talk) 08:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Turing red was also a box office failure see List of biggest box-office bombs with Estimated lost of $167 million 92.236.253.249 ( talk) 09:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Also two things
92.236.253.249 ( talk) 15:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
How about we say “ The film is considered to be a box-office bomb‘ is simply 92.236.253.249 ( talk) 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
75% and 6.7/10 on Rotten Tomatoes, 60 on Metacritic. I think the reception occupies that space between "generally positive" reviews and "mixed" or "lukewarm" reviews. I propose calling the response "mixed to positive", which is common for media in this zone as you can see here. Somarain ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I was in Europe a few months ago and saw the movie on June 14th, it had it's opening on June 17th in America. Sorry if adding the poster was an inconvenience to anyone. 72.252.138.56 ( talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Lightyear (upcoming film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Lightyear (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The article says that "the Turnip’s escape trajectory is compromised by Buzz". How, exactly? I didn't see him do anything that doomed the escape flight (though he blames himself for it). - Brian Kendig ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lightyear (film) 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 article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
I believe it should be mentioned that at this time, the Lightyear trailer uploaded by the Pixar Youtube channel has 8.3 million views. The 83 million views that is sourced in the Hollywood Deadline article is erroneous. 100.2.137.190 ( talk) 05:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Soundtrack":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Should the controversy over Pixar's decision to include homosexual content in children's entertainment be covered? 人族 ( talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Kiss controversy should be included, the wikipedia article for Blank Check has a section about kiss controversy, and that controversy didn't arise until 2009, 15 years after the film had been released. Lightyear on the other hand the controversy is before it's been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:F19B:B0ED:3A25:A86D ( talk) 04:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a Leak in Twitter and Uzo Aduba's Hawthorne Character First Name is not Alicia, But Alisha. Link here https://twitter.com/bttfrare/status/1511722927841943553?cxt=HHwWgoCpjcr_2_opAAAA -- Happiness is Simple ( talk) 09:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Lightyear will have it's Special Screening at Annecy Festival. The Runtime is revealed to be 1 Hour, 45 Minutes -- Happiness is Simple ( talk) 05:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting to link Lightyear (soundtrack) in the music section. 110.225.253.148 ( talk) 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lightyear (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "BOM":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There are some people claiming that in a post-credits scene, Zurg survived the explosion. I have seen the movie, which has two post-credits scenes and neither of them have Zurg. Or he may have been hiding in the background of one of them. Red4Smash ( talk) 16:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Can someone please change “raised a daughter” to “raised a son”? Alicia Hawthorne raised a son with her wife. That son then had a daughter (her granddaughter, Izzy). Thanks 125.168.134.152 ( talk) 11:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
TLDR, the plot doesn't belong in the cast section. Alright, User:InfiniteNexus, let's have the talk. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'spoiler' because that's not the primary concern here. The cast section isn't the place to discuss the plot of the film; and I would be very surprised if Brolin is billed anywhere as Zurg/Old Buzz. All of the other cast members have a very brief description that doesn't delve into the plot of the film; I don't see why Zurg should be different. I think James Earl Jones as Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back is a perfectly relevant example, as it doesn't list him as "Luke's father" in the cast section; that's a plot point that is discussed in the plot section. Another example, Avengers: Endgame doesn't list Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Old Steve Rogers, nor does it delve into him being aged up; that point is, however, discussed in the plot section. I suspect if you were to look at the billing for this film you wouldn't find Brolin listed as anything other than Zurg; that's all I've been able to find. While WP doesn't engage in spoiler warnings, it does seem like we should keep the plot in the relevant places. DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 00:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Zurg / Old Buzzin the end credits, so we should mirror that here. Per common practice on Wikipedia articles, cast listings go
Real name / Alias, so he should be credited as
Buzz Lightyear / Zurg. Buzz Lightyear is his real name, Zurg is his alias. It's really that simple. I don't know why The Empire Strikes Back doesn't mention Vader is Luke's father, I'm not a Star Wars fan and don't edit their articles, but Avengers: Endgame does not say
Steve Rogers / Old Stevebecause it doesn't make sense. "Old Steve" is not an alias. The plot point that he aged up is also not crucial to be mentioned. To invoke WP:SPOILER again, it is not acceptable to remove plot details from anywhere on an article simply because it "spoils" the movie. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The opening text of the film states: "In 1995, a boy named Andy got a Buzz Lightyear toy for his birthday. It was from his favorite movie. This is that movie." It does not say Andy watched the film in 1995, and Andy watching Lightyear is not depicted in Toy Story. jhsounds ( talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I created a controversies section due to the recent discussion of the movie. [ This section] was reverted twice without explanation by @ CreecregofLife: and a third time with the explanation of WP:UNDUE. I am willing to compromise and concede on the lead, however I believe a section is very due as multiple news organizations have commented on this issue for weeks, and even the lead actor has commented multiple times on it. Some journals have attributed the disappointing box office numbers to this controversy as well, so only including one sentence at the end of the critical response section does not explain this situation well enough. Please comment your thoughts and support/opposition to inclusion. Thanks, Anon0098 ( talk) 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies".) and, like has been pointed out above, all the pertinent information is already in the article in various sections. - Brojam ( talk) 17:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
A dispute over whether Lightyear can be called a "box-office bomb" has now led to this article being locked down, which seems like an overreaction, but we should probably resolve this so that editing can be restored. So, the issue seems to be this text, which uses the term "box office bomb", which CreecregofLife doesn't like because it's "exaggerative language", and it's too soon to know whether this is a bomb or not. Although CreecregofLife then re-added the text themselves, now without the references, so maybe there's no longer a dispute at all? Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
“We should additionally consider unfortunate pushback over the film’s same-gender relationship from ultra-conversative families, who have also been educated for two years to expect Pixar movies on streaming sooner rather than later,” says Robbins, referencing Disney’s decision to send multiple Pixar titles to Disney+ since the pandemic. “The combination of those two sentiments seem to have instilled a ‘We’ll watch it before letting our kids see it’ mentality in some communities, particularly those with strict religious views, in contrast to the filmmakers’ intentions of championing equality and representation for everyone.”
— Pamela McClintock, in an article from The Hollywood Reporter [1]
And1987 ( talk) 19:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You can objectively say it's a bomb by standard criteria - it lost millions. You can argue journalists are using kid gloves because it's a Disney project and would use stronger language for another company, and that may be true, but it's irrelevant. We mirror what sources say in proportion to both their amount and quality. The sources use more careful language - saying it has "underperformed" or " underwhelmed" and such. If sources outright call it a "box office bomb", then include it. I actually did a bunch of searches specifically to see if any articles called it a bomb but didn't find any. The only ones using very strong language are ones that are partisan or blogs, which can be outright ignored. The language of Hollywood reporter, LA Times, NY Times, etc is what we go with.
In another example for an article I edited, I only called Carrot Top's " Chairman of the Board" a box office bomb specifically only after I found two high quality sources saying as such. It's not just a matter of looking at the box office compared to its budget. If it was, that verges into original research territory. It's not our job to say what films did well or did not, and we're certainly not experts when it comes to the economics of film making. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
it can't be a bomb if it was intentionally tanked by a specific demographic.Korny O'Near ( talk) 23:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed"". While the onus is on us for inclusion, you seem to be the only one vehemently against inclusion. And since your arguments are, in my opinion, extremely weak since you refuse to provide sources of your own, I believe consensus is significantly in favor of inclusion. We'll see what the admin who locked the page says though. Anon0098 ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like my most recent edit undone. I don’t remember how it happened, but it was an accident and antithetical to what I believe should be CreecregofLife ( talk) 17:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. the gross for films changes daily. Can we change the gross according to box office mojo and the numbers? Evope ( talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Evope ( talk) 21:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In light of overwhelming support for the usage of the word "bomb" and CreecregofLife's weak arguments against, please lift the Protection status with the consensus of using "box office bomb" in place of "box office disappointment" Anon0098 ( talk) 17:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wanted to update the box office numbers to $160.6 million that was reported in the numbers website that’s used as a source Db9780 ( talk) 22:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@ CreecregofLife: This is getting ridiculous. I'm going to need you to cite sources saying this movie was not a disappointment, or some logical reason you are opposing this since you refuse to use edit summaries properly. I can at least see the argument that this does not fit into a bomb specifically, but virtually all sources admit this was a disappointment, failure, flop, etc, and from what I can see you have made no argument against that until this point. While I really am trying to assume good faith here, I really have a hard time understanding why you are still opposing this. In order to avoid a continued edit war I will not reinsert the information, but failure to provide additional sources or at least some good argument will result in me reinserting the material since while "bomb" was only accepted by the majority of editors, "disappointment" or some variation of that was approved by everyone. Anon0098 ( talk) 16:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"bomb" is premature, sources outdated.. If this is not who you are referring to please give a name as I honestly dont know who you are referring to. And again, please give sources saying this was not a disappointment Anon0098 ( talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Korny O'Near: @ CreecregofLife: @ And1987: @ Harizotoh9: @ Crumpled Fire: @ Anon0098: @ HumanxAnthro: Hello, regarding our discussion in the past few days I thought we had already reached a consensus on box office bomb being an adequate term. Support/Oppose question: Do you support this film being described as a box-office bomb?
Definition according to Wikipedia: A box-office bomb, box-office flop, or box-office failure is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. Although any film for which the production, marketing, and distribution costs combined exceed the revenue after release has technically "bombed", the term is more frequently used for major studio releases that were highly anticipated, extensively marketed and expensive to produce that ultimately failed commercially. DemianStratford ( talk) 05:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Addendum:
(feel free to add more), Anon0098 ( talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose I really have to stress that we and our opinions do not matter. We don't write articles, sources do. There is zero consensus among experts and journalists that it is a box office bomb. The highest quality sources don't refer to it as a bomb, but use other terminology. CNN for instances says " Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ fizzles at the box office". These are the sources you put the WP:WEIGHT for. You have to cherry pick very hard and cite some very low quality sources to find people calling it a bomb.
Online only sites like Looper have have only been around for like 10 years, and being online only they have a tendency for lower quality journalism and sensationalism. I have a strong distrust of these kind of sources for this reason and will always consider older more traditional media higher quality. They have a longer history of higher quality journalism, and are less prone to sensationalism because online is only a fraction of their revenue. Yes, there is a big difference between Looper and CNN, The Los Angeles Times, NPR, Associated Press, etc.
Additionally, looking at the definition of box office bomb and then applying that to this film is the definition of "original research" which is strictly forbidden on wikipedia. Our personal opinions and analysis do not matter, as Wikipedia is a summarization of high quality scholarship. User:Harizotoh9 02:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add an additional reference to this sentence, "Some box office analysts theorized that family audiences were reluctant to attend theaters in general due to COVID-19 concerns, although this was seemingly disproven after Minions: The Rise of Gru opened to $108 million in the U.S. and Canada two weeks later." with this.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rubin |first=Rebecca |date=2022-07-05 |title=Why ‘Minions: The Rise of Gru’ Thrived at the Box Office While ‘Lightyear’ Flailed |url=https://variety.com/2022/film/news/minions-the-rise-of-gru-box-office-record-lightyear-1235309097/ |access-date=2022-07-05 |website=Variety |language=en}}</ref> And1987 ( talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Change "The film made $6.6 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." in #Box_office with "The film made $6.5 million in its third weekend, finishing sixth." Also, please change the citation that follows the sentence with this source from Box Office Mojo: <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/2022W26/|title=Domestic 2022 Weekend 26|website=[[Box Office Mojo]]|access-date=July 6, 2022}}</ref> These are the Monday actuals. A person in Georgia ( talk) 23:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone change the box office gross? On box office mojo and the numbers shows the daily gross. -- Evope ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Evope ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The current Plot refers to Zurg as being from “an alternate timeline”. But in fact Zurg is from the original timeline, while Buzz’s timeline became the alternate when Zurg traveled back in time.
Therefore I suggest the following edit starting with “Following an encounter …”:
Following an encounter, Zurg abducts Buzz, bringing him aboard his ship. Zurg reveals that he is an older Buzz from the future who has now traveled back in time, thereby creating a new alternate timeline inhabited by both of them. In the original timeline, following his successful hyperspace test, Buzz faced arrest from Burnside’s forces, but escaped. Bsoo ( talk) 08:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Turing red was also a box office failure see List of biggest box-office bombs with Estimated lost of $167 million 92.236.253.249 ( talk) 09:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Also two things
92.236.253.249 ( talk) 15:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
How about we say “ The film is considered to be a box-office bomb‘ is simply 92.236.253.249 ( talk) 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
75% and 6.7/10 on Rotten Tomatoes, 60 on Metacritic. I think the reception occupies that space between "generally positive" reviews and "mixed" or "lukewarm" reviews. I propose calling the response "mixed to positive", which is common for media in this zone as you can see here. Somarain ( talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I was in Europe a few months ago and saw the movie on June 14th, it had it's opening on June 17th in America. Sorry if adding the poster was an inconvenience to anyone. 72.252.138.56 ( talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Lightyear (upcoming film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Lightyear (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The article says that "the Turnip’s escape trajectory is compromised by Buzz". How, exactly? I didn't see him do anything that doomed the escape flight (though he blames himself for it). - Brian Kendig ( talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)