BoxOfficeBomb cleanup

I think the Box Office Bomb pages may need some cleaning up, so I'm opening this discussion.

Any comments?

Three questions:

1. What is the problem?
2. Where is the problem? (Please provide courtesy links.)
3. What's the plan to resolve the problem?

1. I think it might have some Natter issues, and maybe some bashing.

2. Courtesy link, there are 5 subpages as follows:

Numbers Through D, E Through H, I-M, N-R, and S Through Z.

3. I would love some direction before I figure out what we need to trim. I think cutting some irrelevant info would help.

edited 13th Aug '17 11:48:37 PM by jameygamer

On second thought, should this go to TRS?

No, because there is already enough pending work and this topic does not give a clear case for action.

Okay, I did remove a few bits of Natter from the pages that looked like comments that had no value to the actual works listed on the page, plus a few sinkholes.

Mind if we apply a strict set of criteria to Box Office Bomb? Like, a film must fail to make back its budget both domestically and overseas, but not necessarily both of them combined?

Yeah, shoot away.

Sorry, been a while since someone posted here.

Also, why don't we use a table format for Box Office Bomb?

For example, 47 Ronin:

Hmm, that might actually make the page clunky. I know that's used on the Dueling Works pages, and there was a Trope Repair Shop thread about that some time ago.

What about the contents of why a film failed, and any impact it had? Is there anything we should remove?

For the crtieria, should it be films didn't make twice its budget at the worldwide boxoffice? I often hear a film needs to do at least that to be a success (granted, marketing isn't in the production budget and the theatres takes a cut of the revenue).

Personally, I wouldn't mind the table format.

Yes, it says on the main page that a film has to at least make back double its budget to get into the black. Most of the films listed on those pages did gross less than the displayed budget.

Now, a lot of the examples also added marketing costs. Is there a problem with this?

I'm not liking the table format right now.

My concern is with the extra content added on explaining the events around a film's flopping. I'm thinking we should cut those down, as they are trending towards Natter and creator bashing, at least in my opinion.

That's my concern.

edited 29th Jan '18 5:09:04 PM by jameygamer

AND I checked there, and someone split a page in two. I do think there are a lot of bombs, but does anyone think we should remove some of the bombs so the pages aren't so clunky?

Alright, someone did bump the Dueling Works page noting that they felt the table format did not work.

My problem with the pages is there is some complaining on some of the entries. We can zap the complaining.

Anyone agree?

edited 19th Feb '18 12:00:57 AM by jameygamer

[self-thumped, I mis-parsed a sentence.]

edited 12th Mar '18 1:53:20 PM by Albert3105

I suppose the what could likely help is to decide what the standard example should look like.

Lets say we are dealing with a film that gross less than half its budget by the end of theatrical run (worldwide gross in this case).

After mentioning it probably loss money, should other information be mentioned? For example, "This film later sold very well on the home media' and eventually got a sequel'

As for likely what I suspect for the claiming parts, should we mention reasons that sources (preference to places like variety or Hollywood reporter which report on the film industry) state why the film was failure ("bad reviews", "poor marketing" "high production costs" "external event")

I'd love to be involved in a potential clean-up, especially with my growing expertise on box office data (I read Box Office Mojo weekly and I visit a site called Bomb Report, which sets strict criteria on what qualifies as a flop). So what is the basic problem? Are examples getting shoehorned? Too many instances of Germans Love David Hasselhoff?

This cleanup has potential. Please advise.

Regarding the table format, it becomes very difficult to read on mobile devices, especially smartphones. There's a reason why I argued against tables in Dueling Works. Yes, I mentioned how the only way to read the tables properly is to have a very large monitor with a very high screen resolution (such as a 27" iMac with Retina Display like what I have) with the lowest zoom setting with wide load enabled.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jun 28th 2022 at 1:42:48 PM

A newer cleanup exists now. Should this one be morgued?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Aug 6th 2022 at 1:36:19 PM

I suppose so. Locking.