Talk:The Mummy (2017 film)

no sources to call this a bomb

MOS:ACCLAIMED: "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

@Sariel Xilo Per the WP:BURDEN aspect of the verifiability policy, it is on you to provide sources for using the term "box-office bomb": The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution Holydiver82 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Fairly obvious that this about the consensus reached at Talk:The Marvels#Box Office Bomb (you even copied something I said directly). Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you're having issues with the MOS:ACCLAIMED policy, then you should start a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film instead of engaging in disruptive editing to make a point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

trying to clean up some subjective opinion in a film article that fails to meet wikipedia guidelines. the fact that you yourself have posted about this very subject makes it highly confusing why you would have a problem with correcting an article to conform with very clear wikipedia guidelines in order to make it the most accurate possible.

if you believe this is a box office bomb please post up the reliable sources per MOS:ACCLAIMED 152.44.162.18 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with general advice that editors should not be disrupting Wikipedia just to make a point. If you are legitimately challenging "box-office bomb" on these articles (The Mummy as mentioned above and Transformers: The Last Knight in this edit), then that's one thing which can and should be looked at, but hopefully the intent is not to prove a point of hypocrisy. If that's your primary goal, it will be interpreted as a form of disruption and will quickly lead to a block. Be prepared to discuss these edits when challenged.

With that said, I actually agree that these terms should not be loosely applied to films. A film losing millions doesn't automatically mean we should call it a bomb. Sources need to predominantly call it that, and the loss must be verified. I think The Marvels will eventually get there, but the exact loss isn't yet known; there is only speculation at the present time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

people love to shit on tom cruise films, calling this a bomb when it did better than break even against its budget and only lost money on marketing is an unfair use of box office bomb.

and no reliable sources have been presented calling it a box office bomb.

that was an opinion that I disagree with and not supported by reliable sources.

unless some reliable sources can be linked up no reason to have someone posting their negative opinion of a film that while losing money was far from a box office bomb Holydiver82 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The total cost of a film includes production budget, marketing, post-production, and distribution costs. You may believe it is "unfair" to count all of those, but that is typically what's done when judging whether a film bombed. Although I don't care to dig for sources, this film did lose over $60 million (some say as much as $95 million), so I'm sure there are quite a few sources out there that have labeled it a bomb, flop, and/or commercial failure. It also ranks in the middle of the pack at list of biggest box-office bombs. Ranking in the middle all time is no small feat! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

By today's standard covering production costs and only losing 60 million in marketing is a win. 2023 movies would kill to have such light losses and actually have the box office cover production.

Lose money for the studio, sure

bomb? Let's see the sources Holydiver82 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the film should be described as a "bomb" (although I agree that the term should be attributed to sources in the same way we expect "critically acclaimed" to be sourced) but losing $60 million and possibly as much as $95 million is very much not a "win". If the higher figure is accurate, that would put the film among the top 100 money-losers of all time. Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, whatever today's standard is for a bomb or a flop is irrelevant for this discussion, since the film was released pre-COVID and thus can't be judged by what we now consider a success/failure after the general audience's filmgoing habits have drastically changed. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

see WP:BURDEN, MOS:ACCLAIMED

in regards to calling this a bomb Holydiver82 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Betty and Harryhenry1. The article mentions in the lead and body that the film lost up to $95 million. To me, this is sufficient, but if some editor out there wants to reinstate the "bomb" or "flop" label, they can do the necessary digging for sources and reopen this discussion at a later time. Considering this matter resolved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves. Do we need to tell readers a film is a "bomb" if it loses $95 million? Probably not, although I have no fundamental objection to doing so if reliable sources describe it in that way. If we focus on the facts, then the language we use to describe a film's success or failure becomes secondary. Betty Logan (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Theme Park recycling?

We know Universal's upcoming Epic Universe park, right? should there be mention of the fact that it salvaged the "Dark Universe" name for its Universal Monsters-themed land? Visokor (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"The picture was revealed to be edited, with none of the cast of the Dark Universe having actually been together when it was taken."

The source for this info in the Cancelled Franchise section does not provide any proof and is merely based on assumptions. https://www.vulture.com/2017/05/universal-monsterverse-dark-universe-photo-depp-bardem-crowe-cruise.html 143.44.196.141 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)