| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elemental (2023 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
The idea of a non-binary character was used for marketing/promotion to try and gain interest, primarily during Pride Month, any development surrounding this character being non-binary is not in the final film.
If it's not part of the movie, neither the dialogue nor character development, then it shouldn't be listed as a character trait in the description of the characters as it's irrelevant to how the character is depicted in the film.
The director making remarks about the characters outside of what is shown should either be considered under the marketing for the film OR in a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:E1FD:FAAC:96B1:C532 ( talk) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, who's Matt Yang King? You should take out the stuff that is unconfirmed. How do you guys know who voices Alan Ripple? Are you spies or something? Maybe "Ripple" isn't even his last name, and he's not really Wade's dad, maybe he's just his brother. Yeah, some websites stated that he is possibly Wade's brother, but I recommend YOU not to add anything, and just make it "TBA as Alan" no "Matt Yang King" or "Ripple". Unconfirmed stuff. How do you even know if "Ripple" is Wade's real last name? I know it was in his tag that reads "ELEMENT CITY INSPECTOR WADE RIPPLE. But Maybe it's fake, you never know. Also, what the heck is "Fern Grouchwood"? Where the heck did you get "Grouchwood"? Did you make that up? You put "Matt Yang King" on there like you're so sure, but maybe you're wrong. That's why you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. Silly Simonthings18. MariaKwanta ( talk) 04:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Man why you going off about cartoon character names the movie ain't released yet fam chill out bro once it's out they'll have all the data compiled bro they'll have their data compiled 2806:261:417:7099:2136:E2C4:5D0C:684A ( talk) 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The voice actor confirmed it in replies on his IG post 176.234.229.187 ( talk) 09:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
HOW? 184.185.152.3 ( talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Many sources calls it rom-com film, so it is a rom-com film. LancedSoul ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
So we know the Performance is Poor at the Moment. We should keep an eye out what's the Latest Earnings of the Box Office later. Happiness is Simple ( talk) 20:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Here I am @ Nyxaros: at the talk page. Since when do we include a source that has cherry picked tweets to summarize "social media reception". We don't. It's synthesizing unreliable sources (tweets) to come up with an overall conclusion. I wasn't the only one that contested this inclusion of yours. What is your rationale for including this? The Metacritic deletion was just collateral damage, though it could be argued that it's unnecessary. Let the reviews speak for themselves. Mike Allen 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- They are both sources reporting content in the mentioned areas. Regardless of whether or not a source should be used on the page based on tweets from general audiences and some critics, the source states "positive reviews", that's not synthesizing when we include it in this article as the source itself literally names this claim. If we act from your opinion then we shouldn't use the consensus and Metascore of RT and MC either because they also cherry pick reviews to sum up the reception and come up with an "overall conclusion". They also include websites and publications that we've labeled as "unreliable". On a side note, you kept reverting with MC source multiple times, you should've read and checked what you were reverting.
ภץאคгöร 09:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Positive reviews from a select number (like what, under 10?) of random tweets. What are you not understanding?
Mike
Allen 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you are going to question the source just because it used select number of tweets, you should check these random tweets, which are written by people including a Critics' Choice member and an editor of Collider. As I've stated, the other sources do "select numbers" too, and this is not the place to discuss why they do it. You have to decide if it's in line with MOS:FILMCRITICS and/or it's "quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary". Other than that, there's no problem. ภץאคгöร 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Positive reviews from a select number (like what, under 10?) of random tweets. What are you not understanding?
Mike
Allen 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2300 98.10.136.168 ( talk) 11:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You can watch this movie in movie theaters. Seinfeld429 ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the run time to 1 hour and 43 min or 103 minutes Indyquaza135 ( talk) 23:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done. The source states 109 minutes -
BBFC.co.uk]
Mike
Allen 23:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have made many edits about this films box office performance. The reasons for reversion were weak. Either "box office could improve" or "too early". These are both subjective assessments. I have provided many, even too many apparently sources to back my claim of a box office bomb. No one reverting my edits has provided sources portraying the films box office as successful or just not bad. At best this film earnings were disappointing (yahoo) at worst they were a disaster (global village space). Both sources call it a flop or bomb. Why this is too early for us but not for most RS's I don't know. Can we at least keep the fact that this is the lowest grossing opening weekend for a Pixar film. A fact that most articles mention. PalauanLibertarian 🗣️ 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- A lot of films that have had weak opening weekends have usually recovered and become successful. Saying a film is a box office bomb purely by its opening weekends even though it's still pulled in a profit by its second weekend is a good example of jumping the gun. Yes, many sources have claimed it's a flop, but most films have had weak openings before recovering. And no, this is is not a "subjective assessment" like you claim. This has been proven before.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 04:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Further More, We are not gonna believe this Box-office disappointed yet. I'd say it's gonna Run for a Couple of Months before it will come to Disney+. Pete Docter says he wants us to be Patient. Happiness is Simple ( talk) 08:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about
Turning Red then? The film performed a lot worse than this one yet it is not mentioned in the lede. Why does this film get the same special treatment despite another film completely failing in comparison to this?
COVID-19 doesn't apply here, it should be mentioned in the Turning Red lede as the explanation but all that there was on that article is block evasion. So tell me, how is there not an agenda to hide facts about Disney's films performing not so good?
82.66.209.179 (
talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe because Turning Red didn't release theatrically in any major market?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:A061:BF34:AB4B:ED74 (
talk) 08:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is currently July 4th. The film is reported to have grossed $190,598,429 globally against a production budget of $200 million. It is already seeing its theater count dwindle and is getting fewer showings in the remaining cinemas. At this point, I think it safe to at least classify it as a box office failure.
2601:248:4780:4C70:730E:8AC:AF60:8B0E (
talk) 04:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- The film is still in third place at the box office during weekend which means the film is still doing well domestically and those box office reports are known to be slow. Again, we're not changing it until the theater count really starts to drop. It's only lost a few theaters compared to The Flash. Adamtb24 ( talk) 05:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- We will need an actual box office analysis from creditable sources to describe the film as a box office failure. Not an anonymous user on Wikipedia. Thank you!
Mike
Allen 12:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- @ MikeAllen I have already found a source saying that it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically.
- "The animated romance has no hope of recouping its $200 million production budget domestically, but it has held well since its disastrous opening and has now pushed beyond a $100 million domestic gross."
- [1]
- I don't even think it will internationally either.
Lightyear grossed $226 million worldwide against a $200 million budget and it lost Disney $106 million.
[2]
And1987 (
talk) 20:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't object to that being added into the box office section.
Mike
Allen 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
MikeAllen Other articles have also said it's a box office bomb.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] I don't see why can't include the fact and these sources like the
box office section for
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does.
And1987 (
talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Which article? Let's take a look at your sources.
- Deadline says "Disney, Despite ‘Indy’ & ‘Elemental’ Misfires, Leading 2023 Global Box Office With $3.4B Billion", no further elaboration in their piece.
- EW says "Elemental continues to struggle to find that trademark animated magic"
- Variety says "it’ll need to remain the de facto choice for family audiences to justify its $200 million price tag and restore a little confidence in the Pixar brand."
- Variety again: "And “Elemental,” which hasn’t lived up to Pixar standards, is displaying modest staying power with $88 million in North America and $186 million worldwide. The film looks like it’ll continue to draw in family crowds throughout the summer, but it’ll struggle to justify its $200 million budget."
- IndieWire: "It’s #8 this weekend, down 67 percent and has not yet grossed $100 million."
- All these articles are in the future tense. As such, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to call it a box office bomb at this point of time in Wikipedia's voice. With its current legs the film will definitely edge out to $400 million worldwide. There is no full and final sealed deal here. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 ( talk) 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Which article? Let's take a look at your sources.
- @
MikeAllen Other articles have also said it's a box office bomb.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] I don't see why can't include the fact and these sources like the
box office section for
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does.
And1987 (
talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't object to that being added into the box office section.
Mike
Allen 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right now Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is being considered a box-office bomb. There are sources providing that fact. I previously provided some about the box office disappointment for Elemental in my previous edit. [8] And1987 ( talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Variety also said that despite the film holding well in recent weeks, it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically.
[9]
And1987 (
talk) 20:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still not calling it a bomb. Exactly how many tentpole movies break even from just domestic?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (
talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have another source saying that this movie's box office total won't be coming out of the clear. "“Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic."
[10]
And1987 (
talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was a week ago when the film still hadn't opened in a few territories, plus it's once again based on the film's dismal opening weekend despite it having grown strong legs since then. I wouldn't say its valid.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 06:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
Adamtb24 It’s not likely to turn a profit with a $200 million budget. Look at how much money films like
Rise of the Guardians and
Mr. Peabody & Sherman lost due to high production and marketing costs.
And1987 (
talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's true, but still a box-office bomb and having grown strong since then, we need Attributed to multiple references about Elemental flop. Not likely a profit with $200 budget.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Screen Rant estimates that the film would need to gross $400 million worldwide to be a success financially. However, depending on how much money was spent on the marketing, the film would need to make closer to $500-$600 million in order to really be considered a hit.
[11]
And1987 (
talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Some strange thing happen last week when some made an edited on Pixar Wiki Fandom. look at this
https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Elemental. It's almost halfway to it end if the film gross $400 million but someone went to Pixar Wiki Fandom and edited it.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Today
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it considers the film to be one of the big-budget misses of the summer so far.
[12]
And1987 (
talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Variety is still calling the film a “costly misfire”.
[13] We could wait until later this year to see if Disney reports how much money the film might lose or in early 2024 to see if Deadline Hollywood lists it as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2023 like they did with Lightyear and Strange New World.
[14]
And1987 (
talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then on the other hand you have
Gizmodo saying its
on its way to "a sleeper success", and
/Film discussing it's
passing of Encanto and its major
"reversal of fortune" before becoming
"highest-grossing original Hollywood film released in theaters since the pandemic began". Variety also later notes that after its disappointing start, the film
"has rebounded". -
2pou (
talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- This article says that it will still need to gross $500 million to break-even.
[15]
And1987 (
talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Predicted to need as much as $500 million to break even, some critics are looking toward Elemental's Japanese debut on Aug. 4 as the final test of its turnaround.
Predicted by who? Mike Allen 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)- I have to admit, this film kind of surprised me with it's legs. According to Box Office Mojo's numbers, it has grossed over $425 million against a $200 million budget as of August 9th. In an interview with Variety, Pixar president Jim Morris is claiming that with their additional revenue streams, the film is now poised to post a net profit.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/ If you are willing to take him at his word, this definitely takes the film out of Box office Bomb range.
MLcausey (
talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Morris in the article states that he wants it to gross $500 million. He was hoping for that because the film has a $200 million budget. It's been said in sources that a film has to make 2.5 times its production budget to turn a profit or break even theatrically. [16] [17] If you multiply 200 x 2.5 you get 500. This was also written today in The Hollywood Reporter,
- "Pixar and Disney’s Elemental was a win in terms of overcoming a soft opening and enjoying strong legs to gross north of $478 million to date at the worldwide box office, but its pricey production budget of at least $200 million makes a financial victory difficult."
- [18] And1987 ( talk) 22:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, this film kind of surprised me with it's legs. According to Box Office Mojo's numbers, it has grossed over $425 million against a $200 million budget as of August 9th. In an interview with Variety, Pixar president Jim Morris is claiming that with their additional revenue streams, the film is now poised to post a net profit.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/ If you are willing to take him at his word, this definitely takes the film out of Box office Bomb range.
MLcausey (
talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- This article says that it will still need to gross $500 million to break-even.
[15]
And1987 (
talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then on the other hand you have
Gizmodo saying its
on its way to "a sleeper success", and
/Film discussing it's
passing of Encanto and its major
"reversal of fortune" before becoming
"highest-grossing original Hollywood film released in theaters since the pandemic began". Variety also later notes that after its disappointing start, the film
"has rebounded". -
2pou (
talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Variety is still calling the film a “costly misfire”.
[13] We could wait until later this year to see if Disney reports how much money the film might lose or in early 2024 to see if Deadline Hollywood lists it as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2023 like they did with Lightyear and Strange New World.
[14]
And1987 (
talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Today
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it considers the film to be one of the big-budget misses of the summer so far.
[12]
And1987 (
talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Some strange thing happen last week when some made an edited on Pixar Wiki Fandom. look at this
https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Elemental. It's almost halfway to it end if the film gross $400 million but someone went to Pixar Wiki Fandom and edited it.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Screen Rant estimates that the film would need to gross $400 million worldwide to be a success financially. However, depending on how much money was spent on the marketing, the film would need to make closer to $500-$600 million in order to really be considered a hit.
[11]
And1987 (
talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's true, but still a box-office bomb and having grown strong since then, we need Attributed to multiple references about Elemental flop. Not likely a profit with $200 budget.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
Adamtb24 It’s not likely to turn a profit with a $200 million budget. Look at how much money films like
Rise of the Guardians and
Mr. Peabody & Sherman lost due to high production and marketing costs.
And1987 (
talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was a week ago when the film still hadn't opened in a few territories, plus it's once again based on the film's dismal opening weekend despite it having grown strong legs since then. I wouldn't say its valid.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 06:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have another source saying that this movie's box office total won't be coming out of the clear. "“Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic."
[10]
And1987 (
talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still not calling it a bomb. Exactly how many tentpole movies break even from just domestic?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (
talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is currently July 4th. The film is reported to have grossed $190,598,429 globally against a production budget of $200 million. It is already seeing its theater count dwindle and is getting fewer showings in the remaining cinemas. At this point, I think it safe to at least classify it as a box office failure.
2601:248:4780:4C70:730E:8AC:AF60:8B0E (
talk) 04:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe because Turning Red didn't release theatrically in any major market?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:A061:BF34:AB4B:ED74 (
talk) 08:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Screen Rant and CBR are sister sites sharing several staff/resources. You quoted them at $400million earlier (now met with the trades acknowledging the turnaround as well with THR noting it "weathered the storm" and "won’t be a huge theatrical money loser after all"), and now the goalposts are being moved?
Getting back to what Talk pages are for, though, what exactly are we trying accomplish in this discussion? We dont need to continue to use it as a repository of every story covering the box office performance. Things have changed so much, I think we've lost sight of where its going. It seems all the coverage paints a pretty clear picture: The film opened poorly, and it appeared to be a financial disappointment; however sustained ticket sales over its theatrical run resulted in box office sales totalling $_____<fill in the blank>. This is all pretty well outlined in the THR piece just linked, aside from a final number, so multiple references can be consolidated until a final number eventually comes. - 2pou ( talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the film will lose money, and is unfortunately not a "sleeper hit" as the article claims. The general rule of thumb is that a film needs a little over two and a half times its production budget to start breaking even (including marketing, prints, theaters' cut of the profits, etc.), so with a production budget of $200m, Elemental would need ~$550m to start earning a profit. It's WW gross was "merely" $444m. It may be able to recoup a little more with digital & Blu-ray sales, but will still unlikely hit its break even point. Even if it miraculously managed to barely get to that number, it still wouldn't be considered a "hit" of any kind.
2601:5C1:4580:1330:51A1:58A7:F9D9:1493 (
talk) 00:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many publications and Disney and Pixar themselves have stated the film has become profitable. It's already proven it's a sleeper hit, it's been written into the article, there's nothing more that can be added to this discussion so let's end it with that.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine. The numbers don't support it, but it's perfectly fine.
24.131.3.70 (
talk) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, honestly, the data doesn't lie... unlike studios that would want to make themselves look good in a time of extreme strife. 24.131.3.70 ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine. The numbers don't support it, but it's perfectly fine.
24.131.3.70 (
talk) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many publications and Disney and Pixar themselves have stated the film has become profitable. It's already proven it's a sleeper hit, it's been written into the article, there's nothing more that can be added to this discussion so let's end it with that.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know that this discussion has winded down, but in response to the most recent comment here; in August Pixar's president Jim Morris specifically said to Variety (sourced in the article) "We have a lot of different revenue streams" and "at the box office we’re looking at now, it should do better than break even theatrically. And then we have revenue from streaming, theme parks and consumer products. This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." As Morris said, they have multiple revenue streams. The Disney and Pixar executives have access to all of the internal data. So they would know better than anyone that film has become profitable. Contributor19 ( talk) 23:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Nice article in the New York Times today: ‘Elemental’ Morphs From Flop to Hit, Raising Questions Along the Way.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
It could be noted that Flarrietta is a customer at The Fire Place. Also here is a link on the Immigration Official: https://pixarpost.com/2023/05/elemental-sneak-peek-american-idol.html 65.130.217.56 ( talk) 03:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
According to the website CBR, it is estimated that the film will need to gross $500 million to break-even. [19] Is this accurate and should we include it in the article? And1987 ( talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think break-even points are of encyclopedic value. That is for trade residual performance reviews and investors to evaluate. Facts like (production) budget and box office sales and regions are for encyclopedias to report. Profit and loss values… Hollywood accounting makes things too unreliable to be of encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Unless we’re trying to comment on said accounting practices. For example Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix is still losing money, right? - 2pou ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Elemental had just reached $300M domestically and $450M worldwide." 73.132.195.186 ( talk) 15:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Aside from the plant thing when did they face xenophobia?
It's more the father who is quite the racist, coming to a city full of water guy and complaining that they are actually water guy living there? and that the city is not made for fire people? well duh
Little-kinder (
talk) 20:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- They face xenophobia because at the beginning of the movie, none of the other elements want to rent a room to Bernie and Cinder. Contributor19 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I've seen edit warring for those two, which violated WP:3RR. Honestly, when the aggregators (like Rotten Tomatoes which classified it as "fresh" and Metacritic which received "mixed or average" reviews) disagree, then we shouldn't be summarizing in the lead. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, no one violated
WP:3RR, i.e. reverted more than three times (though it seems like there is erroneous tagging). The aggregators do not
"disagree"
about anything. There are already multiple spurces stating mixed reviews. I've already explained multiple times with edit summaries and a message, and posted a RT link. Cite your sources for "positive reviews" claim. Questioning a reliable source by writing"Using Metacritic as a source isn't helpful either"
does not seem like the right thing to do. ภץאคгöร 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)- I get it. The source did say "mixed reviews", but unfortunately, the problem is that Rotten Tomatoes classified it as "fresh" (which means it got positive). I want the editors to read how Rotten Tomatoes works (link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180615114047/https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/31/16107948/rotten-tomatoes-score-get-their-ratings-top-critics-certified-fresh-aggregate-mean) Also, your behaviour is unacceptable. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with
LancedSoul.
Contributor19 (
talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are gonna ignore multiple sources just because Tomatometer is "fresh"? (%60 or more reviews are positive, that doesn't mean the website explicitly states something like "this film received positive reception", which is
WP:SYNTH. Tomatometer rating only shows the percentage of positive reviews of critic reviews collected by RT. It does not state a "different result" than Metacritic, which explicitly states "mixed" reviews. The aggregator comparison is irrelevant and unreasonable, especially considering the fact that there are other sources that show the same/very similar "result" as Metacritic. In short, you can't label the film's reception "positive" based on RT score. If you want to add the claim that the reception has changed to "positive" since the film's debut, you have to include multiple sources that explicitly mention the change and "positive reviews" so that one can actually verify.) How is my behavior
" unacceptable"
? I'm not the one continuing to ignore/remove reliable sources and insisting on trying to portray a feature of a particular website as something it is not. I advise you to stop accusing other editors and instead focus on improving your edits. I also suggest that you don't continue with your "this article determines all RT states" attitude everywhere just because someone shared a Vox article years ago and you got it. (RT already has its own page here). ภץאคгöร 08:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC) -
User:Adamtb24 wrote
many recent publications have said "acclaimed"
, so why not add them? You can solve the problem by adding "many" of these alleged publications. ภץאคгöร 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)- I'm getting sick and tired of this "I didn't hear that". This is exactly reminds me of Talk:Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)#Overall critical reception, although I was not involved in talk page.
- And yes, I found the source which says "Elemental has been getting positive reviews from critics and has a positive audience score," even if we know that we do not use audience score, which is unneeded. Click here:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/elemental-among-lowest-debuts-pixar-190353844.html (hold on, I figured out it is actually Yahoo producing. Maybe I will find another positive review for reliable source.)
LancedSoul (
talk) 08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Copy part of another editor's uncivil response. Find only one source. Problem solved.
Done Congrats. Dig deeper to find more instead of talk page discussions that were closed because of the same things I wrote above. Where are "many recent publications"? More.
ภץאคгöร 09:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Copy part of another editor's uncivil response. Find only one source. Problem solved.
- You are gonna ignore multiple sources just because Tomatometer is "fresh"? (%60 or more reviews are positive, that doesn't mean the website explicitly states something like "this film received positive reception", which is
WP:SYNTH. Tomatometer rating only shows the percentage of positive reviews of critic reviews collected by RT. It does not state a "different result" than Metacritic, which explicitly states "mixed" reviews. The aggregator comparison is irrelevant and unreasonable, especially considering the fact that there are other sources that show the same/very similar "result" as Metacritic. In short, you can't label the film's reception "positive" based on RT score. If you want to add the claim that the reception has changed to "positive" since the film's debut, you have to include multiple sources that explicitly mention the change and "positive reviews" so that one can actually verify.) How is my behavior
- I agree with
LancedSoul.
Contributor19 (
talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should sum up the consensus as positive since most films that have a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and are closer to 60 on Metacritic usually are summed up as positive in the consensus. Both
Cars 3 and
Sing have Metacritic scores as this film and both are summed up as having positive reviews in the lead.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are other films that have closer to 60 on Metacritic, yet fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes too, like
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted,
Rise of the Guardians,
Mr. Peabody & Sherman, and
Penguins of Madagascar (all of whom are
DreamWorks Animation films).
LancedSoul (
talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been nearly two weeks, yet you did not add a single source from your
many recent publications have said "acclaimed"
claim. And now you're trying to use what's written on other pages, ignoring sources for this page, as a valid reason to have your own way. ภץאคгöร 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- You clearly are not listening to what we are saying and continuing to do this
"I didn't hear that". Many film publications can claim a film has mixed reviews, but it's more often not taking it to account the full picture of a film. When it usually comes to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic if a film is usually hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter, it can usually be attested to positive. If it was at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic, then we would use your sources saying it's mixed
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, if you need sources that point to the review being positive and not mixed alongside the Desert News article, I have a Hollywood Reporter article pointed to this film having "lukewarm reviews" and positive audience feedback, and lukewarm tends to lean more towards positive than mixed. There's also this Digital Spy article talking about its critical rebound regarding Rotten Tomatoes going from 57% to 74% which usually means it went from getting mostly mixed reviews to somewhat positive.
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/elemental-box-office-debacle-pixar-bombs-1235518578/
- https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a45098433/elemental-box-office-explained/ Adamtb24 ( talk) 01:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- You clearly are not listening to what we are saying and continuing to do this
"I didn't hear that". Many film publications can claim a film has mixed reviews, but it's more often not taking it to account the full picture of a film. When it usually comes to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic if a film is usually hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter, it can usually be attested to positive. If it was at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic, then we would use your sources saying it's mixed
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been nearly two weeks, yet you did not add a single source from your
- There are other films that have closer to 60 on Metacritic, yet fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes too, like
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted,
Rise of the Guardians,
Mr. Peabody & Sherman, and
Penguins of Madagascar (all of whom are
DreamWorks Animation films).
LancedSoul (
talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not making things up. I'm not removing any sources.
I'm not writing something that is not explicitly stated in the sources. You do not get to decide if
"hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter"
is positive or mixed, the sources themselves do, and the sources are used regardless of"at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic"
. You are the one who is clearly not listening. "lukewarm" does not mean "positive". Digital Spy reports RT score going up, not the overall reception changing to"somehwat positive"
. This is the result of yourmany recent publications have said "acclaimed"
claim? These are themany recent publications
? Not only are you claiming information that is fabricated and false, but you are also wasting the editors' time. ภץאคгöร 08:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Chris Bumbray of JoBlo.com gave the film a 7 out of 10, stating: "At its heart, Elemental is a rom-com, which, oddly enough, is a rare thing these days. Leah Lewis and Mamoudou Athie (who was great in the Netflix movie Uncorked) have good chemistry, and there's a sweetness to their tentative romance that hasn't been seen in a mainstream movie in too long. Sometimes you almost forget you're watching animation as the two characters feel alive. However, at a certain point, you realize this is a nice movie but perhaps not as resonant as their best work. It's sweet and entertaining in the same way Onward is, meaning it's second-tier Pixar – below the classics like Wall-E and Up, but far above any of the Cars movies, Elio, Lightyear, etc."
How is Elio “second-tier Pixar” when the movie hasn’t even been released yet? Jimmysmitzismyhero72 ( talk) 20:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Dunno. In the meantime, I added a footnote to his review explaining that Elio has not yet been released yet. Thanks for noticing! OmegaMantis ( talk) 21:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that using {{cast list}} isn't necessary because they have descriptions and critical commentary, which is similar to Luca since they also have descriptions and critical commentary as well. LancedSoul ( talk) 21:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{div col|colwidth=}} was being used until
this user deleted it with no summary, so I undid it and added {{Cast list}} (becase I thought the Cast list template was prefered over using other code). They didn't provide an edit summary so I had no idea why they would remove it (which I first saw them do it
here). Thanks for the explanation.
Mike
Allen 21:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No problem for that. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It is unusual to cast minorities as romantic leads in a Pixar production. Leah Lewis Lewis is Asian American and Mamoudou Athie is African American which I did not figure out until I saw pictures of the actors. I tried to add this information to each cast entry but this was removed as "irrelevant" with all the controversy surrounding the Little Mermaid and Disney pledging to cast more minorities, and animations like Rayna and the Last Dragon feature a mostly Asian cast Bachcell ( talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the user who called it "irrelevant." It is irrelevant to mention their ethnicity. There is no reason to call attention to it, especially since this is not the first time that Pixar has cast minorities in leading roles ( Coco and Soul come to mind) and that fact that they are romantic leads is also irrelevant, and also rather trivial. Contributor19 ( talk) 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- And in your edit summary, you claimed that Lewis and Athie were cast in "non-ethnic parts." Fire is non-ethnic? Water is non-ethnic? If anything, fire people are clearly meant to be seen as minorities in the film's world.
Contributor19 (
talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Did I just involved the page discussion because I just removing anything that is unnecessary, means that I have no idea? LancedSoul ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- And in your edit summary, you claimed that Lewis and Athie were cast in "non-ethnic parts." Fire is non-ethnic? Water is non-ethnic? If anything, fire people are clearly meant to be seen as minorities in the film's world.
Contributor19 (
talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ LancedSoul: out of curiosity, is there anything that you would like to add to this discussion?
- "It is unusual to cast minorities as romantic leads in a Pixar production." It is unusual for Pixar to depict romantic fiction in general. In the List of Pixar films, the only previous romance film is WALL-E (2008). Several of their films do not even have romantic subplots. Considering how frequently the plots of Walt Disney Animation Studios films rely on romance stories, I found it unusual that Pixar's stories mostly lacked romance. Dimadick ( talk) 10:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I like to change the run time to 101 minutes please. I saw it on the blu ray dvd. Super Chow58 ( talk) 12:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The infobox goes by original theatrical runtime. WP:FILMRUNTIME. Mike Allen 15:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Of the box office takings of around 500 million, half goes to the cinemas and 100 million was spent on marketing. This means that the film cost 200 million and earned around 150 million. How can you call that a sleeper hit? ~~~~ 2A0A:A541:95CA:0:2166:495A:6C2C:D153 ( talk) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- It could have been worse. Have you seen the box-office figures for The Marvels or Wish? But Elemental stayed in the box-office top ten for 8 weeks. It could have cratered like the other two I mentioned, but it persisted. Besides, "Sleeper Hit" is what the sources say. CRBoyer 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, I have arrived at a discussion on this page after it has already winded down, but in response to the OP; it cannot be emphasized enough that in August 2023, Pixar's president Jim Morris (as sourced in the box office section of the article) stated "We have a lot of different revenue streams" and he also said "at the box office we’re looking at now, it should do better than break even theatrically. And then we have revenue from streaming, theme parks and consumer products. This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." The key quotes are "a lot of different revenue streams" and "This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." Morris confirmed that, due to multiple revenue streams in addition to the box office, Elemental has been profitable for Disney. Plus, as already noted in this discussion, there are sources cited in the article that refer to the film as a "sleeper hit". Contributor19 ( talk) 09:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert wikipedian but I'd like to add a section on the conlang in the language and its pretty cool and an interesting part of the movie. I definitely know how to format it and all and have sources for it but I don't know etiquette on whether such a section is notable enough to be added. ChromeBones ( talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Fire and water cannot be together has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Fire and water cannot be together until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 01:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
" Elements cannot mix" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Elements cannot mix has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Elements cannot mix until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 01:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- B-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- B-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- B-Class American animation articles
- Top-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- B-Class Animated films articles
- Top-importance Animated films articles
- Animated films work group articles
- B-Class Computer animation articles
- Top-importance Computer animation articles
- Computer animation work group articles
- B-Class Pixar articles
- Top-importance Pixar articles
- Pixar work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Unknown-importance Animated films articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class Disney articles
- Low-importance Disney articles
- B-Class Disney articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Disney articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance American animation articles
- Low-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Elemental (2023 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
| This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
The idea of a non-binary character was used for marketing/promotion to try and gain interest, primarily during Pride Month, any development surrounding this character being non-binary is not in the final film.
If it's not part of the movie, neither the dialogue nor character development, then it shouldn't be listed as a character trait in the description of the characters as it's irrelevant to how the character is depicted in the film.
The director making remarks about the characters outside of what is shown should either be considered under the marketing for the film OR in a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:E1FD:FAAC:96B1:C532 ( talk) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, who's Matt Yang King? You should take out the stuff that is unconfirmed. How do you guys know who voices Alan Ripple? Are you spies or something? Maybe "Ripple" isn't even his last name, and he's not really Wade's dad, maybe he's just his brother. Yeah, some websites stated that he is possibly Wade's brother, but I recommend YOU not to add anything, and just make it "TBA as Alan" no "Matt Yang King" or "Ripple". Unconfirmed stuff. How do you even know if "Ripple" is Wade's real last name? I know it was in his tag that reads "ELEMENT CITY INSPECTOR WADE RIPPLE. But Maybe it's fake, you never know. Also, what the heck is "Fern Grouchwood"? Where the heck did you get "Grouchwood"? Did you make that up? You put "Matt Yang King" on there like you're so sure, but maybe you're wrong. That's why you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. Silly Simonthings18. MariaKwanta ( talk) 04:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Man why you going off about cartoon character names the movie ain't released yet fam chill out bro once it's out they'll have all the data compiled bro they'll have their data compiled 2806:261:417:7099:2136:E2C4:5D0C:684A ( talk) 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The voice actor confirmed it in replies on his IG post 176.234.229.187 ( talk) 09:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
HOW? 184.185.152.3 ( talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Many sources calls it rom-com film, so it is a rom-com film. LancedSoul ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
So we know the Performance is Poor at the Moment. We should keep an eye out what's the Latest Earnings of the Box Office later. Happiness is Simple ( talk) 20:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Here I am @ Nyxaros: at the talk page. Since when do we include a source that has cherry picked tweets to summarize "social media reception". We don't. It's synthesizing unreliable sources (tweets) to come up with an overall conclusion. I wasn't the only one that contested this inclusion of yours. What is your rationale for including this? The Metacritic deletion was just collateral damage, though it could be argued that it's unnecessary. Let the reviews speak for themselves. Mike Allen 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- They are both sources reporting content in the mentioned areas. Regardless of whether or not a source should be used on the page based on tweets from general audiences and some critics, the source states "positive reviews", that's not synthesizing when we include it in this article as the source itself literally names this claim. If we act from your opinion then we shouldn't use the consensus and Metascore of RT and MC either because they also cherry pick reviews to sum up the reception and come up with an "overall conclusion". They also include websites and publications that we've labeled as "unreliable". On a side note, you kept reverting with MC source multiple times, you should've read and checked what you were reverting.
ภץאคгöร 09:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Positive reviews from a select number (like what, under 10?) of random tweets. What are you not understanding?
Mike
Allen 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you are going to question the source just because it used select number of tweets, you should check these random tweets, which are written by people including a Critics' Choice member and an editor of Collider. As I've stated, the other sources do "select numbers" too, and this is not the place to discuss why they do it. You have to decide if it's in line with MOS:FILMCRITICS and/or it's "quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary". Other than that, there's no problem. ภץאคгöร 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Positive reviews from a select number (like what, under 10?) of random tweets. What are you not understanding?
Mike
Allen 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2300 98.10.136.168 ( talk) 11:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You can watch this movie in movie theaters. Seinfeld429 ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the run time to 1 hour and 43 min or 103 minutes Indyquaza135 ( talk) 23:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not done. The source states 109 minutes -
BBFC.co.uk]
Mike
Allen 23:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have made many edits about this films box office performance. The reasons for reversion were weak. Either "box office could improve" or "too early". These are both subjective assessments. I have provided many, even too many apparently sources to back my claim of a box office bomb. No one reverting my edits has provided sources portraying the films box office as successful or just not bad. At best this film earnings were disappointing (yahoo) at worst they were a disaster (global village space). Both sources call it a flop or bomb. Why this is too early for us but not for most RS's I don't know. Can we at least keep the fact that this is the lowest grossing opening weekend for a Pixar film. A fact that most articles mention. PalauanLibertarian 🗣️ 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- A lot of films that have had weak opening weekends have usually recovered and become successful. Saying a film is a box office bomb purely by its opening weekends even though it's still pulled in a profit by its second weekend is a good example of jumping the gun. Yes, many sources have claimed it's a flop, but most films have had weak openings before recovering. And no, this is is not a "subjective assessment" like you claim. This has been proven before.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 04:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Further More, We are not gonna believe this Box-office disappointed yet. I'd say it's gonna Run for a Couple of Months before it will come to Disney+. Pete Docter says he wants us to be Patient. Happiness is Simple ( talk) 08:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- What about
Turning Red then? The film performed a lot worse than this one yet it is not mentioned in the lede. Why does this film get the same special treatment despite another film completely failing in comparison to this?
COVID-19 doesn't apply here, it should be mentioned in the Turning Red lede as the explanation but all that there was on that article is block evasion. So tell me, how is there not an agenda to hide facts about Disney's films performing not so good?
82.66.209.179 (
talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe because Turning Red didn't release theatrically in any major market?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:A061:BF34:AB4B:ED74 (
talk) 08:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is currently July 4th. The film is reported to have grossed $190,598,429 globally against a production budget of $200 million. It is already seeing its theater count dwindle and is getting fewer showings in the remaining cinemas. At this point, I think it safe to at least classify it as a box office failure.
2601:248:4780:4C70:730E:8AC:AF60:8B0E (
talk) 04:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- The film is still in third place at the box office during weekend which means the film is still doing well domestically and those box office reports are known to be slow. Again, we're not changing it until the theater count really starts to drop. It's only lost a few theaters compared to The Flash. Adamtb24 ( talk) 05:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- We will need an actual box office analysis from creditable sources to describe the film as a box office failure. Not an anonymous user on Wikipedia. Thank you!
Mike
Allen 12:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- @ MikeAllen I have already found a source saying that it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically.
- "The animated romance has no hope of recouping its $200 million production budget domestically, but it has held well since its disastrous opening and has now pushed beyond a $100 million domestic gross."
- [1]
- I don't even think it will internationally either.
Lightyear grossed $226 million worldwide against a $200 million budget and it lost Disney $106 million.
[2]
And1987 (
talk) 20:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't object to that being added into the box office section.
Mike
Allen 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
MikeAllen Other articles have also said it's a box office bomb.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] I don't see why can't include the fact and these sources like the
box office section for
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does.
And1987 (
talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Which article? Let's take a look at your sources.
- Deadline says "Disney, Despite ‘Indy’ & ‘Elemental’ Misfires, Leading 2023 Global Box Office With $3.4B Billion", no further elaboration in their piece.
- EW says "Elemental continues to struggle to find that trademark animated magic"
- Variety says "it’ll need to remain the de facto choice for family audiences to justify its $200 million price tag and restore a little confidence in the Pixar brand."
- Variety again: "And “Elemental,” which hasn’t lived up to Pixar standards, is displaying modest staying power with $88 million in North America and $186 million worldwide. The film looks like it’ll continue to draw in family crowds throughout the summer, but it’ll struggle to justify its $200 million budget."
- IndieWire: "It’s #8 this weekend, down 67 percent and has not yet grossed $100 million."
- All these articles are in the future tense. As such, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to call it a box office bomb at this point of time in Wikipedia's voice. With its current legs the film will definitely edge out to $400 million worldwide. There is no full and final sealed deal here. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 ( talk) 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Which article? Let's take a look at your sources.
- @
MikeAllen Other articles have also said it's a box office bomb.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] I don't see why can't include the fact and these sources like the
box office section for
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does.
And1987 (
talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't object to that being added into the box office section.
Mike
Allen 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right now Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is being considered a box-office bomb. There are sources providing that fact. I previously provided some about the box office disappointment for Elemental in my previous edit. [8] And1987 ( talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Variety also said that despite the film holding well in recent weeks, it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically.
[9]
And1987 (
talk) 20:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still not calling it a bomb. Exactly how many tentpole movies break even from just domestic?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (
talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have another source saying that this movie's box office total won't be coming out of the clear. "“Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic."
[10]
And1987 (
talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was a week ago when the film still hadn't opened in a few territories, plus it's once again based on the film's dismal opening weekend despite it having grown strong legs since then. I wouldn't say its valid.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 06:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
Adamtb24 It’s not likely to turn a profit with a $200 million budget. Look at how much money films like
Rise of the Guardians and
Mr. Peabody & Sherman lost due to high production and marketing costs.
And1987 (
talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's true, but still a box-office bomb and having grown strong since then, we need Attributed to multiple references about Elemental flop. Not likely a profit with $200 budget.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Screen Rant estimates that the film would need to gross $400 million worldwide to be a success financially. However, depending on how much money was spent on the marketing, the film would need to make closer to $500-$600 million in order to really be considered a hit.
[11]
And1987 (
talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Some strange thing happen last week when some made an edited on Pixar Wiki Fandom. look at this
https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Elemental. It's almost halfway to it end if the film gross $400 million but someone went to Pixar Wiki Fandom and edited it.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Today
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it considers the film to be one of the big-budget misses of the summer so far.
[12]
And1987 (
talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Variety is still calling the film a “costly misfire”.
[13] We could wait until later this year to see if Disney reports how much money the film might lose or in early 2024 to see if Deadline Hollywood lists it as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2023 like they did with Lightyear and Strange New World.
[14]
And1987 (
talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then on the other hand you have
Gizmodo saying its
on its way to "a sleeper success", and
/Film discussing it's
passing of Encanto and its major
"reversal of fortune" before becoming
"highest-grossing original Hollywood film released in theaters since the pandemic began". Variety also later notes that after its disappointing start, the film
"has rebounded". -
2pou (
talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- This article says that it will still need to gross $500 million to break-even.
[15]
And1987 (
talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Predicted to need as much as $500 million to break even, some critics are looking toward Elemental's Japanese debut on Aug. 4 as the final test of its turnaround.
Predicted by who? Mike Allen 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)- I have to admit, this film kind of surprised me with it's legs. According to Box Office Mojo's numbers, it has grossed over $425 million against a $200 million budget as of August 9th. In an interview with Variety, Pixar president Jim Morris is claiming that with their additional revenue streams, the film is now poised to post a net profit.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/ If you are willing to take him at his word, this definitely takes the film out of Box office Bomb range.
MLcausey (
talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Morris in the article states that he wants it to gross $500 million. He was hoping for that because the film has a $200 million budget. It's been said in sources that a film has to make 2.5 times its production budget to turn a profit or break even theatrically. [16] [17] If you multiply 200 x 2.5 you get 500. This was also written today in The Hollywood Reporter,
- "Pixar and Disney’s Elemental was a win in terms of overcoming a soft opening and enjoying strong legs to gross north of $478 million to date at the worldwide box office, but its pricey production budget of at least $200 million makes a financial victory difficult."
- [18] And1987 ( talk) 22:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have to admit, this film kind of surprised me with it's legs. According to Box Office Mojo's numbers, it has grossed over $425 million against a $200 million budget as of August 9th. In an interview with Variety, Pixar president Jim Morris is claiming that with their additional revenue streams, the film is now poised to post a net profit.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/ If you are willing to take him at his word, this definitely takes the film out of Box office Bomb range.
MLcausey (
talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- This article says that it will still need to gross $500 million to break-even.
[15]
And1987 (
talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then on the other hand you have
Gizmodo saying its
on its way to "a sleeper success", and
/Film discussing it's
passing of Encanto and its major
"reversal of fortune" before becoming
"highest-grossing original Hollywood film released in theaters since the pandemic began". Variety also later notes that after its disappointing start, the film
"has rebounded". -
2pou (
talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Variety is still calling the film a “costly misfire”.
[13] We could wait until later this year to see if Disney reports how much money the film might lose or in early 2024 to see if Deadline Hollywood lists it as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2023 like they did with Lightyear and Strange New World.
[14]
And1987 (
talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Today
The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it considers the film to be one of the big-budget misses of the summer so far.
[12]
And1987 (
talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Some strange thing happen last week when some made an edited on Pixar Wiki Fandom. look at this
https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Elemental. It's almost halfway to it end if the film gross $400 million but someone went to Pixar Wiki Fandom and edited it.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
-
Screen Rant estimates that the film would need to gross $400 million worldwide to be a success financially. However, depending on how much money was spent on the marketing, the film would need to make closer to $500-$600 million in order to really be considered a hit.
[11]
And1987 (
talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's true, but still a box-office bomb and having grown strong since then, we need Attributed to multiple references about Elemental flop. Not likely a profit with $200 budget.
MLJ 657 (
talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @
Adamtb24 It’s not likely to turn a profit with a $200 million budget. Look at how much money films like
Rise of the Guardians and
Mr. Peabody & Sherman lost due to high production and marketing costs.
And1987 (
talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- That was a week ago when the film still hadn't opened in a few territories, plus it's once again based on the film's dismal opening weekend despite it having grown strong legs since then. I wouldn't say its valid.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 06:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have another source saying that this movie's box office total won't be coming out of the clear. "“Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic."
[10]
And1987 (
talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Still not calling it a bomb. Exactly how many tentpole movies break even from just domestic?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (
talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is currently July 4th. The film is reported to have grossed $190,598,429 globally against a production budget of $200 million. It is already seeing its theater count dwindle and is getting fewer showings in the remaining cinemas. At this point, I think it safe to at least classify it as a box office failure.
2601:248:4780:4C70:730E:8AC:AF60:8B0E (
talk) 04:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe because Turning Red didn't release theatrically in any major market?
2001:8F8:172B:41ED:A061:BF34:AB4B:ED74 (
talk) 08:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Screen Rant and CBR are sister sites sharing several staff/resources. You quoted them at $400million earlier (now met with the trades acknowledging the turnaround as well with THR noting it "weathered the storm" and "won’t be a huge theatrical money loser after all"), and now the goalposts are being moved?
Getting back to what Talk pages are for, though, what exactly are we trying accomplish in this discussion? We dont need to continue to use it as a repository of every story covering the box office performance. Things have changed so much, I think we've lost sight of where its going. It seems all the coverage paints a pretty clear picture: The film opened poorly, and it appeared to be a financial disappointment; however sustained ticket sales over its theatrical run resulted in box office sales totalling $_____<fill in the blank>. This is all pretty well outlined in the THR piece just linked, aside from a final number, so multiple references can be consolidated until a final number eventually comes. - 2pou ( talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the film will lose money, and is unfortunately not a "sleeper hit" as the article claims. The general rule of thumb is that a film needs a little over two and a half times its production budget to start breaking even (including marketing, prints, theaters' cut of the profits, etc.), so with a production budget of $200m, Elemental would need ~$550m to start earning a profit. It's WW gross was "merely" $444m. It may be able to recoup a little more with digital & Blu-ray sales, but will still unlikely hit its break even point. Even if it miraculously managed to barely get to that number, it still wouldn't be considered a "hit" of any kind.
2601:5C1:4580:1330:51A1:58A7:F9D9:1493 (
talk) 00:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many publications and Disney and Pixar themselves have stated the film has become profitable. It's already proven it's a sleeper hit, it's been written into the article, there's nothing more that can be added to this discussion so let's end it with that.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine. The numbers don't support it, but it's perfectly fine.
24.131.3.70 (
talk) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, honestly, the data doesn't lie... unlike studios that would want to make themselves look good in a time of extreme strife. 24.131.3.70 ( talk) 12:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine. The numbers don't support it, but it's perfectly fine.
24.131.3.70 (
talk) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many publications and Disney and Pixar themselves have stated the film has become profitable. It's already proven it's a sleeper hit, it's been written into the article, there's nothing more that can be added to this discussion so let's end it with that.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know that this discussion has winded down, but in response to the most recent comment here; in August Pixar's president Jim Morris specifically said to Variety (sourced in the article) "We have a lot of different revenue streams" and "at the box office we’re looking at now, it should do better than break even theatrically. And then we have revenue from streaming, theme parks and consumer products. This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." As Morris said, they have multiple revenue streams. The Disney and Pixar executives have access to all of the internal data. So they would know better than anyone that film has become profitable. Contributor19 ( talk) 23:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Nice article in the New York Times today: ‘Elemental’ Morphs From Flop to Hit, Raising Questions Along the Way.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
It could be noted that Flarrietta is a customer at The Fire Place. Also here is a link on the Immigration Official: https://pixarpost.com/2023/05/elemental-sneak-peek-american-idol.html 65.130.217.56 ( talk) 03:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
According to the website CBR, it is estimated that the film will need to gross $500 million to break-even. [19] Is this accurate and should we include it in the article? And1987 ( talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think break-even points are of encyclopedic value. That is for trade residual performance reviews and investors to evaluate. Facts like (production) budget and box office sales and regions are for encyclopedias to report. Profit and loss values… Hollywood accounting makes things too unreliable to be of encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Unless we’re trying to comment on said accounting practices. For example Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix is still losing money, right? - 2pou ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Elemental had just reached $300M domestically and $450M worldwide." 73.132.195.186 ( talk) 15:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate. —
Paper9oll (
🔔 •
📝) 16:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Aside from the plant thing when did they face xenophobia?
It's more the father who is quite the racist, coming to a city full of water guy and complaining that they are actually water guy living there? and that the city is not made for fire people? well duh
Little-kinder (
talk) 20:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- They face xenophobia because at the beginning of the movie, none of the other elements want to rent a room to Bernie and Cinder. Contributor19 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I've seen edit warring for those two, which violated WP:3RR. Honestly, when the aggregators (like Rotten Tomatoes which classified it as "fresh" and Metacritic which received "mixed or average" reviews) disagree, then we shouldn't be summarizing in the lead. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, no one violated
WP:3RR, i.e. reverted more than three times (though it seems like there is erroneous tagging). The aggregators do not
"disagree"
about anything. There are already multiple spurces stating mixed reviews. I've already explained multiple times with edit summaries and a message, and posted a RT link. Cite your sources for "positive reviews" claim. Questioning a reliable source by writing"Using Metacritic as a source isn't helpful either"
does not seem like the right thing to do. ภץאคгöร 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)- I get it. The source did say "mixed reviews", but unfortunately, the problem is that Rotten Tomatoes classified it as "fresh" (which means it got positive). I want the editors to read how Rotten Tomatoes works (link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180615114047/https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/31/16107948/rotten-tomatoes-score-get-their-ratings-top-critics-certified-fresh-aggregate-mean) Also, your behaviour is unacceptable. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with
LancedSoul.
Contributor19 (
talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- You are gonna ignore multiple sources just because Tomatometer is "fresh"? (%60 or more reviews are positive, that doesn't mean the website explicitly states something like "this film received positive reception", which is
WP:SYNTH. Tomatometer rating only shows the percentage of positive reviews of critic reviews collected by RT. It does not state a "different result" than Metacritic, which explicitly states "mixed" reviews. The aggregator comparison is irrelevant and unreasonable, especially considering the fact that there are other sources that show the same/very similar "result" as Metacritic. In short, you can't label the film's reception "positive" based on RT score. If you want to add the claim that the reception has changed to "positive" since the film's debut, you have to include multiple sources that explicitly mention the change and "positive reviews" so that one can actually verify.) How is my behavior
" unacceptable"
? I'm not the one continuing to ignore/remove reliable sources and insisting on trying to portray a feature of a particular website as something it is not. I advise you to stop accusing other editors and instead focus on improving your edits. I also suggest that you don't continue with your "this article determines all RT states" attitude everywhere just because someone shared a Vox article years ago and you got it. (RT already has its own page here). ภץאคгöร 08:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC) -
User:Adamtb24 wrote
many recent publications have said "acclaimed"
, so why not add them? You can solve the problem by adding "many" of these alleged publications. ภץאคгöร 08:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)- I'm getting sick and tired of this "I didn't hear that". This is exactly reminds me of Talk:Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)#Overall critical reception, although I was not involved in talk page.
- And yes, I found the source which says "Elemental has been getting positive reviews from critics and has a positive audience score," even if we know that we do not use audience score, which is unneeded. Click here:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/elemental-among-lowest-debuts-pixar-190353844.html (hold on, I figured out it is actually Yahoo producing. Maybe I will find another positive review for reliable source.)
LancedSoul (
talk) 08:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Copy part of another editor's uncivil response. Find only one source. Problem solved. Done Congrats. Dig deeper to find more instead of talk page discussions that were closed because of the same things I wrote above. Where are "many recent publications"? More.
ภץאคгöร 09:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Copy part of another editor's uncivil response. Find only one source. Problem solved.
- You are gonna ignore multiple sources just because Tomatometer is "fresh"? (%60 or more reviews are positive, that doesn't mean the website explicitly states something like "this film received positive reception", which is
WP:SYNTH. Tomatometer rating only shows the percentage of positive reviews of critic reviews collected by RT. It does not state a "different result" than Metacritic, which explicitly states "mixed" reviews. The aggregator comparison is irrelevant and unreasonable, especially considering the fact that there are other sources that show the same/very similar "result" as Metacritic. In short, you can't label the film's reception "positive" based on RT score. If you want to add the claim that the reception has changed to "positive" since the film's debut, you have to include multiple sources that explicitly mention the change and "positive reviews" so that one can actually verify.) How is my behavior
- I agree with
LancedSoul.
Contributor19 (
talk) 01:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should sum up the consensus as positive since most films that have a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and are closer to 60 on Metacritic usually are summed up as positive in the consensus. Both
Cars 3 and
Sing have Metacritic scores as this film and both are summed up as having positive reviews in the lead.
Adamtb24 (
talk) 20:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are other films that have closer to 60 on Metacritic, yet fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes too, like
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted,
Rise of the Guardians,
Mr. Peabody & Sherman, and
Penguins of Madagascar (all of whom are
DreamWorks Animation films).
LancedSoul (
talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been nearly two weeks, yet you did not add a single source from your
many recent publications have said "acclaimed"
claim. And now you're trying to use what's written on other pages, ignoring sources for this page, as a valid reason to have your own way. ภץאคгöร 08:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)- You clearly are not listening to what we are saying and continuing to do this
"I didn't hear that". Many film publications can claim a film has mixed reviews, but it's more often not taking it to account the full picture of a film. When it usually comes to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic if a film is usually hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter, it can usually be attested to positive. If it was at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic, then we would use your sources saying it's mixed
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also, if you need sources that point to the review being positive and not mixed alongside the Desert News article, I have a Hollywood Reporter article pointed to this film having "lukewarm reviews" and positive audience feedback, and lukewarm tends to lean more towards positive than mixed. There's also this Digital Spy article talking about its critical rebound regarding Rotten Tomatoes going from 57% to 74% which usually means it went from getting mostly mixed reviews to somewhat positive.
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/elemental-box-office-debacle-pixar-bombs-1235518578/
- https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a45098433/elemental-box-office-explained/ Adamtb24 ( talk) 01:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- You clearly are not listening to what we are saying and continuing to do this
"I didn't hear that". Many film publications can claim a film has mixed reviews, but it's more often not taking it to account the full picture of a film. When it usually comes to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic if a film is usually hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter, it can usually be attested to positive. If it was at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic, then we would use your sources saying it's mixed
Adamtb24 (
talk) 01:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's been nearly two weeks, yet you did not add a single source from your
- There are other films that have closer to 60 on Metacritic, yet fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes too, like
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted,
Rise of the Guardians,
Mr. Peabody & Sherman, and
Penguins of Madagascar (all of whom are
DreamWorks Animation films).
LancedSoul (
talk) 20:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not making things up. I'm not removing any sources.
I'm not writing something that is not explicitly stated in the sources. You do not get to decide if
"hovering around 70% or higher and around 60 on the latter"
is positive or mixed, the sources themselves do, and the sources are used regardless of"at least 65% on Rotten Tomatoes and 55 on Metacritic"
. You are the one who is clearly not listening. "lukewarm" does not mean "positive". Digital Spy reports RT score going up, not the overall reception changing to"somehwat positive"
. This is the result of yourmany recent publications have said "acclaimed"
claim? These are themany recent publications
? Not only are you claiming information that is fabricated and false, but you are also wasting the editors' time. ภץאคгöร 08:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Chris Bumbray of JoBlo.com gave the film a 7 out of 10, stating: "At its heart, Elemental is a rom-com, which, oddly enough, is a rare thing these days. Leah Lewis and Mamoudou Athie (who was great in the Netflix movie Uncorked) have good chemistry, and there's a sweetness to their tentative romance that hasn't been seen in a mainstream movie in too long. Sometimes you almost forget you're watching animation as the two characters feel alive. However, at a certain point, you realize this is a nice movie but perhaps not as resonant as their best work. It's sweet and entertaining in the same way Onward is, meaning it's second-tier Pixar – below the classics like Wall-E and Up, but far above any of the Cars movies, Elio, Lightyear, etc."
How is Elio “second-tier Pixar” when the movie hasn’t even been released yet? Jimmysmitzismyhero72 ( talk) 20:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Dunno. In the meantime, I added a footnote to his review explaining that Elio has not yet been released yet. Thanks for noticing! OmegaMantis ( talk) 21:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that using {{cast list}} isn't necessary because they have descriptions and critical commentary, which is similar to Luca since they also have descriptions and critical commentary as well. LancedSoul ( talk) 21:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{div col|colwidth=}} was being used until
this user deleted it with no summary, so I undid it and added {{Cast list}} (becase I thought the Cast list template was prefered over using other code). They didn't provide an edit summary so I had no idea why they would remove it (which I first saw them do it
here). Thanks for the explanation.
Mike
Allen 21:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- No problem for that. LancedSoul ( talk) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It is unusual to cast minorities as romantic leads in a Pixar production. Leah Lewis Lewis is Asian American and Mamoudou Athie is African American which I did not figure out until I saw pictures of the actors. I tried to add this information to each cast entry but this was removed as "irrelevant" with all the controversy surrounding the Little Mermaid and Disney pledging to cast more minorities, and animations like Rayna and the Last Dragon feature a mostly Asian cast Bachcell ( talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with the user who called it "irrelevant." It is irrelevant to mention their ethnicity. There is no reason to call attention to it, especially since this is not the first time that Pixar has cast minorities in leading roles ( Coco and Soul come to mind) and that fact that they are romantic leads is also irrelevant, and also rather trivial. Contributor19 ( talk) 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- And in your edit summary, you claimed that Lewis and Athie were cast in "non-ethnic parts." Fire is non-ethnic? Water is non-ethnic? If anything, fire people are clearly meant to be seen as minorities in the film's world.
Contributor19 (
talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Did I just involved the page discussion because I just removing anything that is unnecessary, means that I have no idea? LancedSoul ( talk) 08:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- And in your edit summary, you claimed that Lewis and Athie were cast in "non-ethnic parts." Fire is non-ethnic? Water is non-ethnic? If anything, fire people are clearly meant to be seen as minorities in the film's world.
Contributor19 (
talk) 02:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ LancedSoul: out of curiosity, is there anything that you would like to add to this discussion?
- "It is unusual to cast minorities as romantic leads in a Pixar production." It is unusual for Pixar to depict romantic fiction in general. In the List of Pixar films, the only previous romance film is WALL-E (2008). Several of their films do not even have romantic subplots. Considering how frequently the plots of Walt Disney Animation Studios films rely on romance stories, I found it unusual that Pixar's stories mostly lacked romance. Dimadick ( talk) 10:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I like to change the run time to 101 minutes please. I saw it on the blu ray dvd. Super Chow58 ( talk) 12:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The infobox goes by original theatrical runtime. WP:FILMRUNTIME. Mike Allen 15:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Of the box office takings of around 500 million, half goes to the cinemas and 100 million was spent on marketing. This means that the film cost 200 million and earned around 150 million. How can you call that a sleeper hit? ~~~~ 2A0A:A541:95CA:0:2166:495A:6C2C:D153 ( talk) 17:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- It could have been worse. Have you seen the box-office figures for The Marvels or Wish? But Elemental stayed in the box-office top ten for 8 weeks. It could have cratered like the other two I mentioned, but it persisted. Besides, "Sleeper Hit" is what the sources say. CRBoyer 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, I have arrived at a discussion on this page after it has already winded down, but in response to the OP; it cannot be emphasized enough that in August 2023, Pixar's president Jim Morris (as sourced in the box office section of the article) stated "We have a lot of different revenue streams" and he also said "at the box office we’re looking at now, it should do better than break even theatrically. And then we have revenue from streaming, theme parks and consumer products. This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." The key quotes are "a lot of different revenue streams" and "This will certainly be a profitable film for the Disney company." Morris confirmed that, due to multiple revenue streams in addition to the box office, Elemental has been profitable for Disney. Plus, as already noted in this discussion, there are sources cited in the article that refer to the film as a "sleeper hit". Contributor19 ( talk) 09:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert wikipedian but I'd like to add a section on the conlang in the language and its pretty cool and an interesting part of the movie. I definitely know how to format it and all and have sources for it but I don't know etiquette on whether such a section is notable enough to be added. ChromeBones ( talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Fire and water cannot be together has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Fire and water cannot be together until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 01:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
" Elements cannot mix" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect
Elements cannot mix has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Elements cannot mix until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 01:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- B-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- B-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- B-Class American animation articles
- Top-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- B-Class Animated films articles
- Top-importance Animated films articles
- Animated films work group articles
- B-Class Computer animation articles
- Top-importance Computer animation articles
- Computer animation work group articles
- B-Class Pixar articles
- Top-importance Pixar articles
- Pixar work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- Unknown-importance Animated films articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class Disney articles
- Low-importance Disney articles
- B-Class Disney articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Disney articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance American animation articles
- Low-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report