Talk:Bros (film)

Gawker source

I removed the following sentence which is sourced to an opinion piece from Gawker:

The studio and Eichner received criticism for their marketing, with some calling Eichner "self-aggrandizing" after his promotion of the film at the 2022 MTV Video Music Awards.

––FormalDude (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth???

It is entirely unhelpful to revert back to flawed text that has been tagged as needing clarification if editors are not going to do any work to actually clarify that text.

Being the "fourth"[1] is not noteworthy (and WP:OR) and it is WP:UNDUE to attempt to highlight it in the lead section. The lead section is supposed to summarize what is in the article body, not add new information. There is no need to highlight recent films such as Happiest Season, Love Simon or Fire Island in the lead section, and especially not when the article body doesn't mention them. There have been many LGBTQ+ films over the years and it requires weirdly specific claims to call this the first, second, fourth of anything. Getting hung up on the numbers is not helpful, the detail worth highlighting is that the principal cast is LGBTQ+. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times says "It isn’t exactly the first major-studio gay rom-com, that rainbow laurel probably goes to 2018’s “Love Simon,” distributed by 20th Century Fox. And TriStar Pictures produced “Happiest Season,” a lesbian holiday rom-com, in 2020."[2]
It is not constructive to try and force a number into the lead section. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear why the text has since been deleted entirely from the lead,[3] although the edit summary claimed it was because it was "Poorly written and not really needed." The filmmakers themselves repeatedly highlighted that they thought the LGBTQ+ casting was important, the problem was the very narrow definition they used to claim they were somehow the first, and then other editors (and the New York Times) rejecting that self-aggrandizing claim of being first. My only objection was to the unnecessary efforts to put a number on it, the LGBTQIA+ casting does seem to be noteworthy and significant enough not only be mentioned in the article body but also in the lead section. -- 109.76.197.94 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

There's some homophobic vandalism on the main page here. 92.235.56.57 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism can simply be reverted. The article has been locked for a week in response. -- 109.76.205.64 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Box office gross

I'm sure it was a good faith effort but editors seem to have updated the box office numbers in the lead section without actually reading the text. The previous text was specifically referring to the film underperforming in the opening weekend. The film grossed $4,854,125 ($4.9 million) in its opening weekend, the total gross is now $5,308,380 ($5.3 million). If you're going to update the figures to what is now the total gross (instead of just the opening weekend gross) then the text also needs to be updated.

I would fix this by removing the mention of the opening weekend, changing

X "The film received positive reviews from critics but disappointed at the box office in its opening weekend, grossing $5.3 million against a budget of $22 million."

to Y "The film received positive reviews from critics. It was a box office disappointment, grossing $5.3 million against a budget of $22 million."

or something like that. (Note: I would try to avoid setting up the "but" or any claims or connections that the box office was "despite" the positive reviews, since the two things are separate, correlation not causation.) -- 109.79.77.170 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Canada isn't part of the United States

In the United States and Canada, Bros was released alongside Smile, and was initially projected to gross $8–10 million from 3,300 theaters in its opening weekend.[3] After making $1.8 million on its first day of release, including $500,000 from Thursday night previews, projections were revised to $4–5 million. The film went on to debut to $4.9 million, finishing fifth at the box office.[21][22] The film's top 10-performing theaters were all in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, while it underperformed in much of the middle of the country and in the south.[23]

It's a weird shift, from talking about North America, to just talking about the US. Can someone edit this?2604:3D09:C77:4E00:B57E:ADA7:C47F:9151 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

False information

“Prior to its release, the film was subjected to homophobic review bombing from users on IMDb.[28][29]“

This states that this is a fact, while the articles both only speculate that this happened. It would be more accurate to state that it was subject to review bombing, and either leave the motivations for it out or include that it’s speculation. Steeloats (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW this was previously removed[4] and restored[5]

I would fundamentally question if it was noteworthy to include any claims of review bombing in an encyclopedia film article, unless more more reliable sources had covered it. As sources such as Variety have pointed out (in the box office section) this film had more fundamental problems attracting an audience than any attempts to skew an already unreliable user voted web poll. If as you say it is speculation then it is unlikely it should be included at all (because sometimes some kinds of speculation are allowed if they are clearly attributed). -- 109.79.165.45 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Deleted.[6] I would appreciate if editors who believe this is worth including would explain why before restoring it again. -- 109.76.133.184 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews is a reliable source and it states in the article that "A group of homophobes have spent their free time review bombing Billy Eichner’s gay romantic-comedy Bros." ––FormalDude (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of mentioning review bombing at all, it seems par for the course, and it was an _attempt_ at review bombing that was scrubbed by IMDB and not due any attention further.

If it is to remain in the article the Critical response section does not seem like the right place for it. If the opinion of PinkNews is that review bombing was homophobic (and that he only possible motivation was that some people are "pathetic homophobes") then it might be necessary to clearly attribute that opinion directly to them (or maybe as an alternate theory people might just not like Billy Eichner). I think it would be better addressed as part of the Release/Marketing section, and put in context with the reaction to the Marketing[7] and tweets where Billy Eichner was attempting to promote the film. -- 109.78.204.243 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT attribution seems appropriate to do. This is another source that talks about the review-bombing. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

After I commented, I noticed presumption that the review bombing was inherently "homophobic" had already been dropped. The AV Club is a secondary source reporting this so including it [the review bombing] no longer seems WP:UNDUE. Thanks Erik for rearranging things and improving the article. -- 109.78.204.243 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

And FormalDude added the word "homophobic" back in again.[8] I don't feel as strongly about this as the earlier anon ipv6 editor did but it is really necessary to include this assertion at all? Maybe I'm naive to believe that people can truly deeply dislike Billy Eichner for who he is a person. If you're going to insist that it is important to characterize the review bombing as "homophobic" then place make the WP:INTEXT attribution clear on who specifically is saying it. -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In text attribution is not needed for non-controversial facts, and the review bombing is portrayed as homophobic by every RS that reports on it. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It is subjective, anon ipv6 disputed it, and I mildy disagree with the assertion. It might be a fair opinion, but it is subjective is not "non-controversial facts" either. -- 109.79.175.195 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Rather than one single word I would encourage you to add context by including a more significant sentence or two outlining why a few sources thought it was worth reporting on this review bombing in the first place. -- 109.79.175.195 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Again I urge you to rethink how to make this a better encyclopedia article and rephrase that section into something more effective and convincing. -- 109.79.175.195 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It is non-controversial as no reliable sources dispute it. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk about having it both ways, User:FormalDude insists on including "homophobic"[9] stating "no reliable sources dispute it" (which I don't believe is the actual requirement for anyone to object, but anyway), then turns around and excludes "box office bomb"[10] simply because it has been disputed on the talk page (not disputed by any reliable source, only my mild complaint that it might be unnecessary emphasis). The argument for including or excluding is essentially the same in both cases, and the facts and sources for "box office bomb" are a whole lot better. At least make your own complaint if you object to "box office bomb" being included. Make up your mind, at least try to be logically consistent. -- 10:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Box office breakdown in lead

An editor is trying to force extra office details[11] into the lead section and it is simply WP:UNDUE. (The errors reintroduced shows a lack of due care and attention. It also is not clear why this editor things having an excessively long quote in a reference in the production section is necessary either.)

The international box office represents only a few million difference to the overall gross of this film, and it is far from recouping its budget and is unlikley to do so. (That isn't even counting the P&A spend and other costs.) Adding more details to the lead section doesn't change that this film was a box office disappointment, they fundamentally spent too much on a film that had a limited potential audience. Rather than add unnecessary emphasis and highlight the box office failure it might be better to summarize what the critics said and the fact that many of the people who saw the film seemed to like it. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The comments about "doing better" on PVOD weren't great either, there are more vague than an encyclopedia should be but it is difficult to succinctly summarize 2nd and 3rd place in some PVOD charts that Indiewire thought was good. It would be better to wait until some hard facts and figures about home media revenues are available from The-Numbers.com -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It isn't too early to call this film a box office disappointment[12] Deadline Hollywood and Eichner himself have acknowledge this.[13] The film was always going to make most of its gross in the US, the international gross is unlikely to even match the US gross, it doesn't matter, it wont matter and it attempting to highlight doesn't make things look any better. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't personally feel the need to use the harsh term box office bomb but Variety has called Bros a bomb.[14] Forcing extra box office details into the lead section doesn't make this film look any better. The lead section is supposed to summarize and the extra details are undue. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor is clearly more interested in accusing me of edit warring than fixing any of the mistakes he keeps reintroducing.[15] Other editors might want to remove the unnecessary details, trim the excessively long quote, and remove the duplicate references. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, the editor described you on your talk page as "repeatedly commenting to yourself" on article talk pages. I see it as updating your rationale for users to see, and some other editors could stand to use such an approach. I have no strong opinion on the edits (although the bare ref bugs me), but the talk concerning them is one-sided. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It is strange to be accused of edit warring WP:BRD by someone who refuses to engage in the D WP:DISCUSS part of the BRD cycle. Perhaps the editor thinks their comments in edit summaries are enough (but the guidelines say no). I am attempting to explain myself, show my work, and edit collaboratively. I am interested in the contents of the encyclopedia article not getting other editors blocked from editing or getting articles locked.

The duplicate references should still be removed, that the anon ipv6 editor insisted on adding them back and was unwilling to make their edits cleanly or actually discuss was bizarre. (The Indiewire reference not only includes the author name Tom Brueggemann twice which first prompted me to clean it up, but it is a duplicate of the named reference "BrosPVOD" that is already included in the article body.) The duplicate Rotten Tomatoes reference in the lead section is obviously unnecessary, see WP:LEAD and WP:NAMEDREFS, and adding it back shows a lack of due care and attention. It will inevitably need to be fixed. (Unfortunately the automated tool Refill does not automatically detect the duplicate references, it needs to be fixed manually.)

The excessively long quote in the Patch.com reference is not needed at all. Patch.com is a local NJ news site is not a good reference[16] they take the filmmakers statement about this film being a "first" at face value. The much more reliable New York Times takes a closer look at that self aggrandizing claim and deflates it[17] and any claims of being "first" requires too many caveats so this encyclopedia article must be very careful about how it reports the claims about the LGBT cast. This issue was basically already discussed, see above Talk:Bros_(film)#Fourth???.

And back to the box office details, the sentence "It wasn't released internationally until several weeks later" is entirely WP:UNDUE that the film had difference release dates in different countries is such a common thing that it is irrelevant, totally not worth highlighting. The lead section should summarize what is actually in the article body not add new information. Ultimately the international box office is extremely unlikely to make any significant difference (it is unlikely to make even half the half the domestic gross again). We might have to wait a few weeks before we have all the facts and figures to say that absolutely definitively, but it is pointless to split out the domestic and international grosses instead of simply summarizing the total worldwide gross. The extra detail that the anonipv6 editor is adding to the lead section is simply unnecessary. Some or all of the changes I made will need to be repeated sooner or later.

If the other editor would WP:DISCUSS then perhaps I might come to understand their perspective, but it still looks to me like someone top loading the article by adding things to the lead section instead of summarizing what is actually in the article body. -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has already removed the statement "It wasn't released internationally until several weeks later"[18]. -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

More of the problems I was trying to fix have been fixed again. The duplicate refs have been removed.[19] The PVOD performance has been rephrased and now says "but found success on home video". It is too soon to say "success" without knowing how much revenue it actually generated, Indiewire only said that "Strong VOD results" and "actually quite good"[20]. The-Numbers.com will publish home media revenue figure eventually be released and then we can say objectively. The exact same film could have been a success as a low budget independent film but as a studio film with a studio sized budget this film needed to find a big cross over audience to bring in the necessary gross but it didn't. -- 109.76.135.144 (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The sentence calling it a bomb/box office disappointment was removed[21] because it wasn't properly sourced in the article body. Variety.com did call it a bomb[22] but there is no need to overstate the facts, it is enough to state the budget and the gross. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone went and added back the label "box office bomb"[23] which isn't wrong but seems unnecessary. The figures speak for themselves. -- 109.76.192.23 (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume you will go search through Wikipedia and remove all of the other references to box office bombs that appear in the opening paragraph of the films' articles. The fact that this film is a box office bomb is part of its identity and should be mentioned at the front.2002:620D:3AF:0:99A8:C701:638D:C0B7 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are long established policies of Wikipedia even if many articles do not yet follow them. Also WP:FILMLEAD. -- 109.76.129.23 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing information

The article includes this sentence:

"The film was a box office bomb, grossing just $13 million worldwide against a budget of $22 million, but found success on home video."

The article does mention that "Bros" was ranked second on Vudu. But the article includes no financial information about proceeds from home video.

This means the article includes no evidence to support the claim that "Bros" "found success on home video.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject will add this information, or else remove the unsupported claim. 2601:200:C000:1A0:2979:6874:1986:631D (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Indiewire said it did better than expected on PVOD but that's subjective, it remains to be seen if that can be called "success". When the article is unlocked I would tag the claim of success as {{dubious}} and wait. (This is one of several issues that I was trying to address in the lead section, see above.) -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Budget versus box office

The lead section explicitly compared the production budget to the box office gross, essentially WP:SYNTHesizing these numbers to imply that these numbers should be compared. This is a simplistic implication when the reality is that additional factors such as prints and advertising (P&A) and/or tax breaks and/or Hollywood accounting are factored in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Universal spent between $40 and $50 million on marketing, so framing $22M versus $14.5M is verified to be disingenuous. I've included these marketing costs in the appropriate place. If readers want to look at the different numbers established in the different places and come up with their own calculations, that's on them. But we should not be doing any versus-type implying. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We're working at cross purposes here. I am not arguing against improvements, I am merely saying the previous version was not as bad as Erik was making it out to be, and not "disingenuous". The better version does not need to be the enemy of the good enough version. I also think Erik is overstating his case when he makes pronouncements like verified to be disingenuous and previously disingenuous in all cases. Comparing the budget to the gross is a little crude and reductive or simplistic but not disingenuous and not intended to mislead in any way. It simply indicates that a film has underperformed when it has failed to even recoup the budget and it is clearly not a success (it also felt more neutral than other editors who wanted to label the underperformance as a "box office bomb"). Merely moving the budget to a different paragraph as Erik did initially[24] did not seem like a real improvement, a small step back. It was only that small edit that I reverted and took any issue with. The subsequent changes where Erik better and more clearly explained that the situation was complicated and outlined the substantial marketing costs was an obvious improvement and more than two steps forward, more than enough to replace the previous inferior simplistic version. It was enough to show readers it was bad, but it is better to properly explain why the underperformance was even worse than it looks at first glance and I welcome an improved encyclopedia article. Accepting that the earlier version had room for improvement is not agreement that it was WP:SYNTH or that it was not acceptable to begin with. There are a whole lot of Wikipedia film articles that make the same simplistic comparison between the gross and the budget, and while I would like to see better versions written I don't want to even suggest that the lesser version be thrown out before the better version happens. Thanks Erik for improving the lead section... but there's another problem that frequently happens with lead sections ...

... WP:LEAD The lead should "summarize the body of the article" and not supplant it. (See also WP:WEIGHT.) The improvements that Erik has made to lead section will need to also be reflected in the article body. As unfortunately happens with many film articles no one has added the budget of $22 million anywhere in article body yet. Those marketing costs should also be outlined in the article body and summarized in the lead, and they have not been added to the article body yet either. The article body should have been improved before making substantial changes to the lead section, but it is good enough for now and rather than revert the improvements in the lead I hope someone might soon improve the article body too. -- 109.76.139.210 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

To provide some context, I have always been against putting the production budget and the box office gross in the same sentence. Same with putting the review aggregator scores and the audience scores (CinemaScore, PostTrak) in the same paragraph, because of the implication. This film kept popping up on the recent changes list, so the budget vs. gross juxtaposition drew my attention. I find it a bad practice, period, and it should be discouraged across Wikipedia. Obviously it would be more noxious if the gross was more than the budget by a million, implying to laypersons that the film broke even. As I mentioned, readers can do that themselves even if the information is in more chronologically-positioned places, but the previous framing was teeing it up for them, hence my mention of WP:SYNTH.

I also agree with you that the article body needs to mention the budget as well as the marketing costs. In fact, I saw plenty of coverage about how this film was marketed as a historical milestone, and that would make for a more substantial "Marketing" section. (Technically it should not exist right now per the commonplace details it has.) Lots of room for improvement for sure. I'm trying not to dive in, because once I get started with these things, I tend to be thorough. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On marketing, this film had some issues. Eichner used some convoluted phrasing to claim it was "first" but it was not some "historical milestone" and various people including the New York Times punctured and deflated that self-aggrandizing claim.[25] (which is what the above section Fourth was all about). -- 109.76.139.210 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Erik please do not add WP:WEASEL marketing claims like "one of the first". Thank you. -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all a WP:WEASEL marketing claim... it's a relevant encyclopedic fact. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The weasel marketing claim was that it was somehow "first" which requires some contortions, and The New York Times said more like fourth. Fourth place is not noteworthy, and WP:UNDUE to highlight in the lead section of an encyclopedia article. Erik tried to compromise by writing "one of the first" which was a good faith effort to fix a broken claim and I hope he will reconsider. the casting is noteworthy but attempting to put a number on it is not necessary or desirable and is frankly misleading. -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a ranking, it didn't place fourth. It's one of the first of this genre. Other genres have hundreds of movies, and there's typically a handful that were "one of the first". ––FormalDude (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the first? When does that term expire? Bros is essentially a remake of Jeffrey, a 1995 gay rom-com. Heck, even the lead actors strongly resemble each other, as do most of the plot devices. There was nothing new or original about Bros, and many of the reviews said as much. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:29E4:6EC:609E:B00E (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't see the problem with "one of the first". To me, it's different from "the first". Regardless, with all this banter about milestones, I feel like there needs to be a distinct "LGBT representation" section that has all the sources talking about the different aspects. We can reference The New York Times and name the other "first" films. I do see that it's considered the first such R-rated film by Los Angeles Times, and coverage about it being the first film to have predominantly queer cast and crew could be moved to that section. And all the related commentary about why it matters or not. If that is done, then the lead section could be revised to adequately summarize such a section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Erik, would you please remove the number until such time as you have written something better in the article body and can add a better summary to the lead. Credit where credit is due, and no credit is due for being "first" because it simply is not first in any meaningful sense, but some credit is due for the casting. -- 109.77.205.15 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Afraid To Be Truthful About The Box Office

No, it wasn't a box office disappointment. All anyone has to do is an internet search. Virtually every publication that covered this movie called it a box office flop, a bomb, a disaster. Yet this is not mentioned in the article, which only illustrates Wikipedia's perennial problem, the lack of neutrality. No, I won't edit the article to make it honest. I've been through Wikipedia edit wars in the past, and they were enough for an entire lifetime of pointlessness. Still, kids, it was a box office flop, a bomb, a disaster. Oh, and the last numbers I saw were that it took in about $15 million in the theaters but cost more than $20 million to make and more than $40 million to promote. So it wasn't just a box office flop, a bomb, a disaster, but it was a financial flop, a bomb, a disaster. The article should say so, but it never will. Not on Wikipedia, which isn't the place to be neutral and factual about much of anything. Oh well. Carry on. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:340A:E431:342D:A8E5 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, someone deleted my post for so-called homophobia. I never mentioned nor alluded to the content of the movie in any way. The deletion was an example of Wikipedia's edit wars and general unreliability. Sorry, but Variety, Forbes, and even the gay publication Queerty called it a box office flop, bomb, disaster. 98.97.116.168 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Same thing. The article states it underperformed at the box office. You just want to use the words: "bomb" and "disaster"? Please read WP:NPOV on why those terms should not be used in the article. I think readers get that it flopped without using such verbiage. Mike Allen 21:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Numerous articles about Bros used the words bomb, disaster, flop. In fact, just about everything written since it bombed used those words. This article is not neutral. I don't care about the subject of the movie, only about the accuracy of the article. It's clear from the article and this talk page that this is one more example of Wikipedia's strong tendency to be taken over by flashmobs flogging a point of view. Bros was a box office flop, a bomb, a disaster. Not my words, but the words of almost every article written about it once it bombed in the theaters. In fact, I believe that Bros might have been the biggest box office bomb, disaster, flop of 2022. Thus, the point of view here, and the disregard of Wikipedia's WP: NPOV rule, is yours and not mine. The article is simply not truthful. Bros was not a mere disappointment. It was a box office flop, a bomb, a disaster. The only place this is disputed is in this substandard article and on this substandard talk page.

A neutral article would use those words, because that's what it was and that's what almost every credible source said it was. I'd also note that, notwithstanding attempts to inflate its significance and originality, there was nothing unique or groundbreaking about this particular box office flop, bomb, disaster. Bros very much traveled the same ground as Jeffrey, a 1995 gay rom-com. Bottom line: This article blatantly disregards WP:NPOV. I have my suspicions about why, but that's neither here nor there. What is clear is that this article is tendentious, slanted, non-neutral garbage of the sort that repels serious editors, readers, and contributors to Wikipedia. Finally, you claim that it's a violation of WP: NPOV to use the term box office bomb. Really? Wikipedia has an article defining the term, and another article that provides a handy list of box office bombs, which are also described as disasters and flops. Have you objected? I looked, and did not see your objection. Why have you objected to that label only for this film, which is the epitome of a box office bomb? 2605:59C8:47E:4210:29E4:6EC:609E:B00E (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, thanks. You don't want to edit and improve the article, you're not providing any of the sourcing for your comments, you won't respond to the charge of POV--if you're even proposing anything in the first place. So, "neither here nor there"--please see WP:NOTFORUM. One more thing: did you really need two dozen edits for these two rants? Please use preview, and don't clod up the history. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They are obviously WP:NOTHERE, so I'm done engaging with the IP jumper. Mike Allen 01:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, if you don't agree, it must be a rant. And yes I did respond to the charge of POV. I skewered it, showing it to be laughable, inconsistent, and hypocritical. Now, speaking of responding, are you actually contending that Bros wasn't called a box office bomb, a disaster, a flop by Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Queerty, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the L.A. Times, to mention a few? One more thing: Yes, I needed the edits, both those and these. Don't like it? Too bad for you. Please don't be so arrogant and condescending. And please don't clod up the history. Thank you. Same for you, Mike Allen. But still, Mike: Why do you object to box office bomb only for this bomb, and why did you dishonestly claim that there's something wrong with a label that Wikipedia uses elsewhere? Thank you. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:29E4:6EC:609E:B00E (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)