![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Paranoia 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.98.129 ( talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
pleas add these films below. I intrested with all of them. They lost too much money
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)
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
Budget:
Rights (Sony): $100,000,000
(Warner Bros.): $60,000,000
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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" 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)
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)
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)
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. Feel free to add more. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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, 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_bomb Clicklander ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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".
There are references for the input data for all estimations. Clicklander ( talk) 18:28, 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)
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)
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)
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.php Clicklander ( talk) 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Saw this and thought it might be useful to your article. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 12:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
I 100% agree with Betty Logan. Let's put such a kind o limit Clicklander ( talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
%loss would be much easier to skim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeidein ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
so it lost money how much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 ( talk) 19:14, 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)
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)
Did muppets most wanted flop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 ( talk) 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return was a bomb. It made 18 million on an 85 million budget.
-- Dagko ( talk) 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.) D ralwi k| Have a Chat 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Paranoia 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.98.129 ( talk) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
pleas add these films below. I intrested with all of them. They lost too much money
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)
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
Budget:
Rights (Sony): $100,000,000
(Warner Bros.): $60,000,000
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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" 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)
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)
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)
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. Feel free to add more. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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, 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_bomb Clicklander ( talk) 17:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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".
There are references for the input data for all estimations. Clicklander ( talk) 18:28, 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)
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)
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)
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.php Clicklander ( talk) 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Saw this and thought it might be useful to your article. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 12:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
I 100% agree with Betty Logan. Let's put such a kind o limit Clicklander ( talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
%loss would be much easier to skim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeidein ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
so it lost money how much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 ( talk) 19:14, 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)
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)
Did muppets most wanted flop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 ( talk) 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return was a bomb. It made 18 million on an 85 million budget.
-- Dagko ( talk) 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.) D ralwi k| Have a Chat 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |