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 |
The movie is tracking toward a worse box office than "The Flash". Would that make it a "Bomb" or some other underwhelming verb use? What should be used to characterize this abject failure? -- Sleyece ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
When is that so-called "final nail in the coffin"?
Please stop removing that from the header. UnboundBeartic ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources(bolding mine). We are not at the "multiple high-quality sources" point to state "box office bomb" within this article. As Harryhenry1 said, no one is denying the film didn't do well. Again, see below for a number of sources found that dissuade us from using "bomb" in article because of WP:HEADLINE, plus the proposed options for wording presenting options we could take. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Per the discussion above on sources being needed, let's actually step in the direction of analyzing the sources the article uses for the statement under box office ("and a box-office bomb"). #1 from the THR uses "Box Office Bomb" in the headline (see above discussion on WP:HEADLINE) but doesn't use it in the article text; it says stuff like "anything but marvelous" & "marks a new low". #2 from Variety uses "bomb" in it's URL but not the headline or body of the text; article says "no longer a bulletproof box office franchise", "The Marvels didn't even match those disappointing estimates", and "disastrous turnout". #3 from Forbes uses bomb in the headline but the article is written by a Senior Contributor so per WP:FORBESCON, not a reliable source. While I think #1 & 2 would support the statement that the film is a " box-office disappointment (which redirects to the box-office bomb article), none of the sources for the statement actually use bomb in the article text. Feel free to add sources to list above if you find any that support the phrasing "box-office disappointment" vs "box-office bomb. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 16:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of new sources, the NYT & BBC (#4 & 5) would support "disappointment" but not "bomb" while Gizmodo & Collider (#6 & 7) use the term "bomb" in the text of the article. Specifically, Gizmodo states "first real box office bomb" & "One bomb in 30 or so" & Collider states "Marvel's first box office bomb". Since the higher quality sources (NYT, BBC, THR, etc) don't use the term "bomb", I don't think that phrase should be used in the lead. But since there are some industry focused outlets using the term, it could used or quoted in the box office section. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 16:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Compared with the first week of The Marvels ($54.8M), the fish man is pacing 6% ahead of that Marvel Studios/Disney bomb, which is in relation to Aquaman 2's box office. The first one, which is specifically centered mostly on this film and it's opening weekend, does not use "bomb" really at all in the context we are looking for. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
"became the biggest bomb in MCU history". It's worth noting that such wording with a semi-copula is scarce in the body of sources which rather describe word box office-performances inline in terms of tracking a day-to-day trajectory. I don't think it will be easy to find many sources using a proper copula because it is not natural for (contemporary) news report to do so. Perhaps in the future, with more analytical sources, you could have better luck.--Asqueladd ( talk) 00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise.) are the Gizmodo, Collider, and Hibberd THR sources? I think those are the only ones we can use. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposed phrasing options:
Added some phrasing ideas so we can be more focused; I've assumed that we'll be able to pull sources from the discussion above when we go to update the article itself. Feel free to update the list if you have alternative ideas. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
"commercial failure" or "box-office failure"terminology instead of box office disappointment. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Some publications have described it as the box-office bomb of the MCU.But as noted at MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, contentious or bold claims require the backing of multiple, high-quality sources. Looking at the list of sources presented above at #Source analysis, we only have THR, Deadline, Collider, and Gizmodo (ignoring sensationalist, exaggerated WP:HEADLINES). That's four. I did a further search online, and all I could find was articles from low-level publications such as Screen Rant that don't really meet the bar of "high-quality". Since we only have these four sources that call it a bomb, and everyone else uses milder terms, calling it a bomb on Wikipedia would be given undue (disproportionate) weight to those four sources. It's not a political agenda; Wikipedia is a tertiary source that simply summarizes the consensus of reliable sources, we are not WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. See also WP:VNT. If you cry foul, then you're just misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and the one who is trying to push a political agenda. If you do not have anything more constructive to say other than make baseless and incivil accusations, then I would politely ask you to vent your anger elsewhere — Twitter/X is right around the corner. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If you don't deny that the film was a failure, then you also agree that it bombed."
Some may want to wait for better sourcing (in-depth financial analysis or high-quality sources that use the actual label) before moving forward with inclusion, and wanting to wait may have NOTHING to do with personal beliefs.This. Perfect way to summarize the intent of how some in this discussion (myself included) are trying to approach all this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable- it's confusing to mention both figures which logically should be the same, and the figures are highly speculative anyway, as suggested by our resort to "reported(ly)", which is in WP:WEASEL territory. Invoking financial terminology ("break-even", "profitable") is misleading when we know so little about the actual finances of the production, and the figures we have are guesses and rules of thumb from industry commentators. Never mind that the studios invoke dark magic even when they're doing their own accounting. It's almost impossible for outsiders to know if a film project was truly profitable. If we're going to include one figure, the $700m looks the least worst, as it plausibly includes marketing and distribution costs. This point is probably separate to the decision on if/where to use the term "bomb", so perhaps one to revisit once the main issue of this conversation is resolved. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've now fully protected the article for 2 weeks due to the constant edit warring over the issue. Let me know if y'all manage to reach a consensus before the 2 weeks has elapsed so I may unprotect early. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Isabelle Belato: Since you removed the full protection and we implemented the agreed upon wording, we have had five edits ( here, here, here, here, and here) trying to add the "bomb" wording back. These were made by four editors in total, three of which were not extended confirmed editors. Is there any benefit to increasing the page protection from semi to extended confirmed? I'm asking here and not at RPP since you were involved with the page protection for this issue specifically. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Skimming through these arguments was hands down the most entertaining thing I did all day. I'm not going to accuse anyone of bias, but I do find it kind of interesting that the film "underperformed" so massively yet doesn't warrant the label "bomb." I can honestly see where the accusations of bias come from, to the extent that people are trying to "protect this film" i.e. protect how it's perceived. You can argue that Wikipedia doesn't have a horse in that race, but I disagree. I've been skimming through Wikipedia articles about things that interest me for the entirety of my conscious life, and I can't tell you how many times I was dissuaded from watching a movie or TV show because its Wikipedia page mentioned "box office bomb" or some other unflattering language in its head section. I think Wikipedia certainly has the potential for influencing, if not outright effecting, people's opinion(s) on relevant topics and I think people underestimate Wikipedia's impact on the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better word) in this regard. Jumping through hoops to not call a box office bomb what it is strikes me as very odd. No one kicks up a fuss over calling DC movies bombs. I honestly do see a correlation between this film bombing/failing/whatever in a way that is more noteworthy than other "box office bombs" and a supposed concerted effort to not portray or describe the film that way. $205 mil WW on a $275 budget is laughably bad. Sure, it's not the end of the world if you don't call it a bomb. It's not going to change how anyone gets out of bed the next morning, but there's no reason to be afraid to call balls and strikes.
This movie bombed. Badly. Shamus248 ( talk) 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Ongoing rants mixed with subtle personal attacks in the form of WP:ASPERSIONS. Collapsing per WP:TALK#POSITIVE. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm a massive admirer of The Marvels star Brie Larson and have even helped take her article to FA-status. I genuinely would have loved for this film to be a success or even to have "underperformed". But that's not what happened. I have to say that not calling this a "bomb" is a travesty, and precisely why so many readers have lost their faith in Wiki presenting facts without bias. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 11:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference for future discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion topic is closed and these comments have been collapsed. You can always add links to your personal talk page until you plan to address them here in a new thread, or you can drop URLs on another personal subpage such as a sandbox. To learn more about your personal userspace, see WP:USER. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
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 |
The movie is tracking toward a worse box office than "The Flash". Would that make it a "Bomb" or some other underwhelming verb use? What should be used to characterize this abject failure? -- Sleyece ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
When is that so-called "final nail in the coffin"?
Please stop removing that from the header. UnboundBeartic ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources(bolding mine). We are not at the "multiple high-quality sources" point to state "box office bomb" within this article. As Harryhenry1 said, no one is denying the film didn't do well. Again, see below for a number of sources found that dissuade us from using "bomb" in article because of WP:HEADLINE, plus the proposed options for wording presenting options we could take. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Per the discussion above on sources being needed, let's actually step in the direction of analyzing the sources the article uses for the statement under box office ("and a box-office bomb"). #1 from the THR uses "Box Office Bomb" in the headline (see above discussion on WP:HEADLINE) but doesn't use it in the article text; it says stuff like "anything but marvelous" & "marks a new low". #2 from Variety uses "bomb" in it's URL but not the headline or body of the text; article says "no longer a bulletproof box office franchise", "The Marvels didn't even match those disappointing estimates", and "disastrous turnout". #3 from Forbes uses bomb in the headline but the article is written by a Senior Contributor so per WP:FORBESCON, not a reliable source. While I think #1 & 2 would support the statement that the film is a " box-office disappointment (which redirects to the box-office bomb article), none of the sources for the statement actually use bomb in the article text. Feel free to add sources to list above if you find any that support the phrasing "box-office disappointment" vs "box-office bomb. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 16:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In terms of new sources, the NYT & BBC (#4 & 5) would support "disappointment" but not "bomb" while Gizmodo & Collider (#6 & 7) use the term "bomb" in the text of the article. Specifically, Gizmodo states "first real box office bomb" & "One bomb in 30 or so" & Collider states "Marvel's first box office bomb". Since the higher quality sources (NYT, BBC, THR, etc) don't use the term "bomb", I don't think that phrase should be used in the lead. But since there are some industry focused outlets using the term, it could used or quoted in the box office section. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 16:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Compared with the first week of The Marvels ($54.8M), the fish man is pacing 6% ahead of that Marvel Studios/Disney bomb, which is in relation to Aquaman 2's box office. The first one, which is specifically centered mostly on this film and it's opening weekend, does not use "bomb" really at all in the context we are looking for. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
"became the biggest bomb in MCU history". It's worth noting that such wording with a semi-copula is scarce in the body of sources which rather describe word box office-performances inline in terms of tracking a day-to-day trajectory. I don't think it will be easy to find many sources using a proper copula because it is not natural for (contemporary) news report to do so. Perhaps in the future, with more analytical sources, you could have better luck.--Asqueladd ( talk) 00:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise.) are the Gizmodo, Collider, and Hibberd THR sources? I think those are the only ones we can use. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 19:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposed phrasing options:
Added some phrasing ideas so we can be more focused; I've assumed that we'll be able to pull sources from the discussion above when we go to update the article itself. Feel free to update the list if you have alternative ideas. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 22:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
"commercial failure" or "box-office failure"terminology instead of box office disappointment. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Some publications have described it as the box-office bomb of the MCU.But as noted at MOS:ACCLAIMED and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, contentious or bold claims require the backing of multiple, high-quality sources. Looking at the list of sources presented above at #Source analysis, we only have THR, Deadline, Collider, and Gizmodo (ignoring sensationalist, exaggerated WP:HEADLINES). That's four. I did a further search online, and all I could find was articles from low-level publications such as Screen Rant that don't really meet the bar of "high-quality". Since we only have these four sources that call it a bomb, and everyone else uses milder terms, calling it a bomb on Wikipedia would be given undue (disproportionate) weight to those four sources. It's not a political agenda; Wikipedia is a tertiary source that simply summarizes the consensus of reliable sources, we are not WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. See also WP:VNT. If you cry foul, then you're just misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and the one who is trying to push a political agenda. If you do not have anything more constructive to say other than make baseless and incivil accusations, then I would politely ask you to vent your anger elsewhere — Twitter/X is right around the corner. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If you don't deny that the film was a failure, then you also agree that it bombed."
Some may want to wait for better sourcing (in-depth financial analysis or high-quality sources that use the actual label) before moving forward with inclusion, and wanting to wait may have NOTHING to do with personal beliefs.This. Perfect way to summarize the intent of how some in this discussion (myself included) are trying to approach all this. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
falling short of its reported break-even point of $439.6 million, while reportedly necessitating to earn around $700 million to become profitable- it's confusing to mention both figures which logically should be the same, and the figures are highly speculative anyway, as suggested by our resort to "reported(ly)", which is in WP:WEASEL territory. Invoking financial terminology ("break-even", "profitable") is misleading when we know so little about the actual finances of the production, and the figures we have are guesses and rules of thumb from industry commentators. Never mind that the studios invoke dark magic even when they're doing their own accounting. It's almost impossible for outsiders to know if a film project was truly profitable. If we're going to include one figure, the $700m looks the least worst, as it plausibly includes marketing and distribution costs. This point is probably separate to the decision on if/where to use the term "bomb", so perhaps one to revisit once the main issue of this conversation is resolved. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've now fully protected the article for 2 weeks due to the constant edit warring over the issue. Let me know if y'all manage to reach a consensus before the 2 weeks has elapsed so I may unprotect early. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 16:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Isabelle Belato: Since you removed the full protection and we implemented the agreed upon wording, we have had five edits ( here, here, here, here, and here) trying to add the "bomb" wording back. These were made by four editors in total, three of which were not extended confirmed editors. Is there any benefit to increasing the page protection from semi to extended confirmed? I'm asking here and not at RPP since you were involved with the page protection for this issue specifically. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Skimming through these arguments was hands down the most entertaining thing I did all day. I'm not going to accuse anyone of bias, but I do find it kind of interesting that the film "underperformed" so massively yet doesn't warrant the label "bomb." I can honestly see where the accusations of bias come from, to the extent that people are trying to "protect this film" i.e. protect how it's perceived. You can argue that Wikipedia doesn't have a horse in that race, but I disagree. I've been skimming through Wikipedia articles about things that interest me for the entirety of my conscious life, and I can't tell you how many times I was dissuaded from watching a movie or TV show because its Wikipedia page mentioned "box office bomb" or some other unflattering language in its head section. I think Wikipedia certainly has the potential for influencing, if not outright effecting, people's opinion(s) on relevant topics and I think people underestimate Wikipedia's impact on the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better word) in this regard. Jumping through hoops to not call a box office bomb what it is strikes me as very odd. No one kicks up a fuss over calling DC movies bombs. I honestly do see a correlation between this film bombing/failing/whatever in a way that is more noteworthy than other "box office bombs" and a supposed concerted effort to not portray or describe the film that way. $205 mil WW on a $275 budget is laughably bad. Sure, it's not the end of the world if you don't call it a bomb. It's not going to change how anyone gets out of bed the next morning, but there's no reason to be afraid to call balls and strikes.
This movie bombed. Badly. Shamus248 ( talk) 03:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Ongoing rants mixed with subtle personal attacks in the form of WP:ASPERSIONS. Collapsing per WP:TALK#POSITIVE. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm a massive admirer of The Marvels star Brie Larson and have even helped take her article to FA-status. I genuinely would have loved for this film to be a success or even to have "underperformed". But that's not what happened. I have to say that not calling this a "bomb" is a travesty, and precisely why so many readers have lost their faith in Wiki presenting facts without bias. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 11:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference for future discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion topic is closed and these comments have been collapsed. You can always add links to your personal talk page until you plan to address them here in a new thread, or you can drop URLs on another personal subpage such as a sandbox. To learn more about your personal userspace, see WP:USER. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |