Talk:Box Office Poison (magazine article)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lasting impact

Is there any indication that this article had any lasting impact on the careers of the actors involved. If not, I can't see how a single article meets any criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it affected the careers of the ten actors listed (though my impression is that most of them went on to make some well-respected films) but the expression "box office poison" continues to be used as a label for actors who don't draw audiences to see their film. Just do a search for "box office poison" on Wikipedia and you'll find the expression used on most of those actors bios, some of their films as well as applied to other actors. I think this article should remain because it explains the origin of the term and briefly touches on what merited the label according to the author of the original article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with source, and "Box Office Poison" is *not* original title of article...

Unfortunately, the first large block quote is not from the source listed, is partially from The Golden Girls of MGM, but partially perhaps from the original article, a source for which is not cited. If someone can provide the citation to the original article, I can repair it.

More importantly, although I agree that the label "box office poison" is definitely relevant, the original article that included the newly-coined phrase is apparently entitled, "Dead Cats", (which I actually like much better, but that is moot) not "Box Office Poison". I would argue that the title of the article should be changed to "Box office poison," and the article discussed in reference to the term, rather than the article itself being the primary topic. Peacedance (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)