Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film)

Editors removing factual information about this film's lackluster box office.

Editors removing factual information about this film's lackluster box office. Most likely because of irritation that this agenda driven movie is set to flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:940:1080:ECB5:3AFB:FC9E:AE6B (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A flop or a bomb thats the adjetive being used by the media.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the movie was good, bad, "woke", or anything else, this movie is a financial failure and should be acknowledged as such, as Wikipedia acknowledges box office failures of many movies. -- 69.86.190.130 (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No mention of feminist agenda

This has been stripped bare of the fact people didn't go see the movie because it was "woke". Elizabeth Banks herself admit that she put "sneaky feminist ideas" in her film, and had excuses ready in advance for the film's failure:"If the film fails, its because men hate women-driven action movies" But frankly, I'm not surprised. Wikipedia has a very hard time with the truth when it touches protected classes of feminists and LGBTQ. It just CANT be all about the facts right? Its very peculiar how what you consider conspiracy theory or pseudoscience is entirely dependent on political views. Many scientists consider the gender spectrum pseudoscience but dont say so in public for fear of losing their jobs. So you get wikipedia embracing gender spectrum as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.129.49.6 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Its a taboo topic, like you have just described. The general backslash against critics of the "woke" POV /Agenda are clearly against Freedom of Speech. But its true. I think to indicate it was as a bomb its fair enought. But be bold, if you want to make contrinbutions to this article go ahead; use Reliable Sources/verifiability.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You will find a single reliable source talking about your "feminist agenda" because the so called "feminist agenda" does not exist outside of the minds of post truth reactionaries still allowed to live on youtube (for some reason) inside your ideological bubble. Wikipedia only cares about facts that are covered by reliable sources. You want to bitch and moan about the nefarious feminist conspiracy to treat women as people, go to Conservapedia, not a legitimate site like this one. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of complaining you could expand the critical response section with quote from some reputable critics [1]. Some of them must have mentioned the Feministic storyline. There are other sources that critique the film, Deadline for example has various explanations for why the film failed [2], the detail that addresses your complaints is where they say that the film "was a one quadrant movie" ie it had a limited target audience, and ultimately the audience was 66% women. The Deadline article is already used as a reference, you could probably include more details.

Dont moan on the talk page about it. Be bold, figure out the rules, find more sources [3][4][5][6], get the quote right "If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies." and include it in the article. Box office section is the best place for it since she was responding to the disappointing opening weekend. -- 109.79.181.75 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Dont be angry/happy for a film that does not achieve the projected revenue. The film was a box office failure or "bomb". Just leave it like that. -- unsigned comment by User:Mr.User200

Please sign your comments using ~~~~. -- 109.76.220.38 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Fox and Dailywire. Doesn't surprise me that those are the only sources you can find that would confirm this "feminist agenda" nonsense. Too bad they're partisan bullshit that jas no place on an unbiased site. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Add flop/bomb label in lead?

SUPPORT. I believe it is notable and there are plenty of reliable sources that affirm it. It's essential to note that the film bombed because most general readers don't really know how to identify a flop. I.e., the average reader would assume the film was a box office success because it grossed $73M, passed its $55M budget, but that's not how break even points work and general readers wouldn't really know how to calculate a film's break even point. The brief label in the lead saves people the trouble because there's already numerous sources confirming the box office stance. Adding the label doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT because it's not excessive, it's essential to the film's reception, and is supported by reliable sources. The sources I provided voice an objective illustration based on facts and were added in a neutral, encyclopedic writing style. So I don't understand why my edit was flagged with WP:NPOV and WP:COLLOQUIAL since not a single paragraph from either pages match my edits. See my edits here. Armegon (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

To restate my edit summary regarding the "box office flop" label, the two publications based their respective analyses on different standards (i.e., 'Variety' took into account the film's "profit margins, cultural impact and . . . counter-programming prowess", while 'DS' made "judgment calls" per its expected earnings), so it is inappropriate to state the subjective label in Wikipedia's voice as if it holds a neutral, concise definition. In addition, the sources deemed the film a flop when it earned $50-something-million. Is it still a flop now that it's made $73M? And if the "flop" label is essential to the film's reception, then why is it not anywhere in the reception section? And do we even know this film's break-even point? If not, why is it being brought up to support including the "flop" label? KyleJoan^talk 09:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not mentioned in the Reception section because it appears that you keep reverting any edits that identify the film as a flop/bomb, see here, here, here, and here. So what chances does anyone have of adding it to Reception if you're going to undo it anyway? Instead of following WP:STATUSQUO by making a good-faith edit by re-wording or revising an edit, you keep reverting edits that are supported by reliable sources. Which seems to walk a razor's edge of violating WP:OWN. And yes, $73M still makes it a flop because that's not enough to cover expenses for print and advertisement costs, the production budget, and the percentage theaters take for their share. According to this article published in January 2020, a film would need to make back double its budget in order to break even. The film would've had to gross $96M to $110M in order to break even. So I'd say there's enough grounds and sources to justify adding the label in the lead. Armegon (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning for your analysis that $73M still makes it a flop is interesting. Unfortunately, your reasoning is not a reliable source, which makes your analysis original research, and so is your claim that the film would've had to gross $96M to $110M in order to break even. KyleJoan^talk 10:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's simple math. Even a child could understand it. You're right, we can't use my own calculations but wouldn't you know it? There are verified sources that confirm the film indeed bombed. THR confirmed it, Deadline confirmed it, the Independent confirmed it. Hell, even Elizabeth Banks identified it herself as a flop. Like I said, there's plenty of sources we can cite to justify adding the label to the lead. Armegon (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

THR, Deadline Hollywood, and The Independent all assigned the label based on the film's performance during its opening weekend. Similar to Variety and Digital Spy, none of them reflect the film's true box office earnings, rendering the "flop" label ambiguous. In order to accurately cite all of these sources to justify adding the label to the lead, the proposed content would need to read: The film flopped with an $8M opening in the US. It was also a flop during the time that it grossed $51–57M. KyleJoan^talk 16:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with KyleJoan that we should not be added language about the total box office to the lead based on sources published less than a week after the film was released. Those are not reliable sources for how to interpret the final box office figures. We also cannot be using sources that do not even mention the film to make generalizations about profitability. The underperformance of this film's opening weekend is already discussed in the main box office section, and I don't think its opening weekend needs to be added to the lead. At any rate, any content proposed for the lead would need to be adequate sourced and added to the main reception section before putting loaded language into the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming in to give my opinion as requested and good lord, I did not realise there's been so much debate on the article over the matter since I last brought it up in March. I agree with KyleJoan that Armegon (talk)'s article from slashgear.com denoting what a movie needs to be profitable can't be used here as it doesnt mention the movie in question and would thus be WP:OR, nor can you outright state that the movie bombed based on sources that describe how it opened in theatres like the one from The Independent. However, the kind of information Armegon (talk) brings up CAN be found in some other sources that do discuss the movie in question like this one https://popculture.com/movies/news/charlies-angels-reboot-flops-box-office/ which states not only that Charlie's Angels' budget didn't include marketing costs but also expresses the rule of a movie thus needing to gross at least twice its production budget to break even. On top of that, 'needing to gross 2x the budget to break even' is an industry fact anyways so it's clear the film lost money. The current phrasing of stating what it grossed against JUST it's production budget could make it look like it turned a healthy profit to the general reader who might well not have knowledge of the movie industry, thus it is highly misleading.

Furthermore, this is just a matter of reflecting what the reliable sources say in the most concise and clear manner possible. Although you can't definitively call the movie a bust, you can state that upon it's release it was quickly dismissed as a box office disappointment and was widely regarded/ranked as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2019 (linking the USA Today article here https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/12/26/cats-charlies-angels-xmen-dark-phoenix-biggest-movie-bombs-2019/2735804001/ and Variety article here https://variety.com/2019/film/box-office/box-office-flops-hits-2019-1203450907/ amongst others, although I think these two would be enough). That is factually and effectively stating exactly what the reliable sources we have on the subject say, without outright stating "the movie was a box office bomb".

I also agree with wallyfromdilbert (talk) that a lot of this information should be put into the relevant section in the article body to beef it up. Information about the it's opening weekend, opening run, the director herself calling the movie 'a flop' is all valuable for the box office section and we have the reliable sourcing available to add it in. Davefelmer (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, Davefelmer. I am not opposed to including additional information in the lead, and I think it will be easier to know what to put in after adding more information into the reception section. Something simple such as "but it was expected to have lost money after including marketing and distributing costs" may be sufficient to avoid presenting the wrong impression in the lead while also avoided more loaded language, although more may be appropriate if that's what the sources say after looking at the total box office. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I am also happy with including "but it was expected to have lost money after including marketing and distributing costs" or words to that effect so that we can present a fair and balanced picture of the film's performance in the lead. However, I would also not be opposed with including any of the previously noted info, especially that of the film being ranked as one of 2019's big box office disappointments since there are a lot of sources on exactly that. But it's all about picking and choosing the right information that will give the most fair and informative summary in the lead. What we should definitely do regardless though is, as you say, beef up the box office section with some of this information. Do you want to get to work on that, or is everyone OK with me adding some of it in? Davefelmer (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine if you added it. You seem to have the info ready to go. Armegon (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the obsession (not directing this toward anyone here, just a general observation) with adding materials in the lead section that's nowhere in the body. A lot of the times it's outright baffling. Aside from that, we don't even have any information on a break-even point, so to apply an industry fact to come to our own conclusion that it's clear the film lost money isn't verifiable, and it's neither outright nor concise. PopCrush outlined that the 2019 Thanksgiving holiday weekend will still not be enough . . . to make up the ground it needs. Especially since the $48 million budget does not include marketing costs for the project. What is enough to make up the ground? Do we know for sure? If not, stating but it was expected to have lost money after including marketing and distributing costs is inappropriate, especially based on PopCrush alone. As for the budget not including marketing costs, whether casual readers know it or not, I've never seen a source report a budget and include marketing spendings, so I believe it is also inappropriate to tack it on to the lead to make a point about supposedly not recouping just to appease casual readers without knowing exact figures or even an estimate per reliable sources. I've also never seen a film article describe its commercial success and regard its marketing spendings in relation to its budget, so why would a film that supposedly lost money regard such a thing?

I'm also curious how we would even beef up the reception section. When I said that we should add this bit (i.e., The film flopped with an $8M opening in the US. It was also a flop during the time that it grossed $51–57M), I was only joking . . . KyleJoan^talk 04:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I would only support adding content to the lead if additional content was added to the body with proper sourcing. I haven't looked through the sources thoroughly enough, and so I don't know what exactly that would look like. My suggestion about "expected to have lost money" was more a general suggestion than something I would recommend adding based on the current reception section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan:I understand and see where you're coming from. Like wallyfromdilbert (talk) says, the 'expected to have lost money' line was merely a pitch in a certain direction towards a compromise where the phrase and sentence would have been more closely looked at and re-worded to provide the fairest and most accurate summary afterwards. However, what is clear is that the movie did poorly. We all know it from the '2x the budget rule', a plethora of sources call it a bomb, a plethora more call it one of the biggest box office bombs of 2019, the director calls it a flop, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find ANY sources at all showing any kind of positive message about the film's box office performance if you could find one at all! Thus, the line in the lead where the movie's gross is simply compared to it's production budget as the only indicator for how it performed, while any and all the sources available that all show consensus in reflecting it's poor performance at various stages of it's run are absent and unmentioned, is a clear violation of WP:DUE. While you're right and we don't have exact information from reliable sources on it's exact break-even point nor a reliable source from after the end of it's run calling it a bomb, and thus we cannot explicitly refer to the movie as a bomb nor hypothesize a logical break even point by which to judge it, we don't need either to reflect that it was a box office disappointment from the sources we have and that is because we can simply use the exact wording of the sources and not stray from it to a general conclusion about the film's performance.

As I previously mentioned, wording along the lines of "it was deemed(or quickly deemed) a box office disappointment(or bomb) upon it's release" can be easily used and backed up with the THR (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/charlies-angels-box-office-bomb-put-an-expiration-date-old-ip-1255570) and Independant (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/charlies-angels-2019-reboot-new-box-office-kristen-stewart-elizabeth-banks-a9206841.html) sources amongst others as it exactly reflects what they say without generalising. And, as mentioned previously, highlighting how it is regarded/was ranked as one of the biggest box office disappointments/bombs of 2019 can easily be substantiated with the USA Today and Variety articles amongst others. That too is also explicitly and clearly stated in multiple sources without the need to talk about break even points, losing money and overall profits. It fairly and concisely represents what the reliable sources all say about the movie without drifting into WP:OR territory. I think this is the best and really only logical way forward here given the options. Davefelmer (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How is the line in the lead where the movie's gross is simply compared to [its] production budget . . . a clear violation of WP:DUE? Box office grosses are a standard part of film articles' lead sections per WP:FILMLEAD; they do not have to contain commentary on how films performed financially in comparison to expectations if such commentary isn't anywhere else in the given article. Regarding The Hollywood Reporter and The Independent, the former states that the film fell to earth with a mere $8.4 million opening at the U.S. box office while the latter states that it has bombed at the US box office following a dismal . . . first three days of release, which makes this statement (i.e., it was deemed . . . a box office disappointment . . . upon [its] release) a violation of DUE. These two sources only affirm that the film underperformed in the US during its opening week, which is already in the article, as wallyfromdilbert pointed out. I think we're all dancing around the fact that there are no sources that support categorically labeling the film a "box office bomb/flop/disappointment". And if we're going to use the exact wording of the sources to assign one of those labels, we can only state that the film was such during the time that it grossed $51–57M because we don't have any further information past that box office milestone. KyleJoan^talk 11:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They do not have to contain commentary, but in this case it obviously should as the film performed poorly at the box office and leaving it at just it's gross versus it's production budget makes it look to the average reader like it made money, which is misleading. The Hollywood Reporter article states, that "days after Sony's Charlie's Angels reboot fell to earth with a mere $8.4 million opening", the film "became the third consecutive franchise reboot attempt to BOMB this month". The Independent article literally opens with, "The Charlie’s Angels reboot has BOMBED at the US box office...opened to a dismal $8 million (£6.1m) in its first three days of release". In light of this, how does that make the statement "it was deemed a box office bomb/disappointment upon it's release" or words to that effect a violation of DUE? It is literally stating what the sources are stating, there's no violation of DUE here. The fact that there are already sources in the body alluding to the film's poor opening like wallyfromdilbert (talk) points out only adds MORE reason to include the info in the lead, as it is based on content in the body which was a primary concern of his. You say there are no sources to support the film being categorically labelled a bomb/flop/disappointment, but as I highlighted above in the sources discussed, it IS categorically called a bomb by THR, it IS categorically called a bomb by the independent and it's clearly called a bomb in the USA Today and Variety articles as their literal titles are "biggest box office bombs of 2019" where the film makes an appearance in each. I have no clue what your last point is because in literally your last response you said this line was a joke, but now you're bringing it up matter-of-factly...to what, stall against the clear logical way forward? Obviously this is nonsense, you're taking figures from the 'biggest box office bombs of 2019' articles that are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the main point of the articles. The articles are reliable sources listing the film as one of the big box office bombs of 2019. Stating that the movie is thus regarded as to be one of the biggest box office bombs of 2019 with those sources as links is merely stating what they say in exactly the way they say it. You seem to be saying "nuh uh, the movie grossed more money after this report so it might not have been as bomb in the end" which is garbage because a) we know it was and b) that's your personal take and opinion and it has nothing to do with the reliable sources in question since we are just using those sources to state what they clearly state.

So in conclusion, it's clear to me that the best and most logical way forward is to follow the line in the intro of "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics." with a new sentence saying, "It was deemed a box office failure following a poor opening (citing one of the THR or Independant articles) and is regarded as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2019 (citing one of the USA Today or Variety articles)." Then follow that with the line already in place of 'The film grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million' but add "not including marketing costs" at the end with a link to this source provided above (https://popculture.com/movies/news/charlies-angels-reboot-flops-box-office/). Then in the 'Box Office' section of the body, we can add the 'regarded as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2019' point as well using the other source that we dont link to in the intro and we can perhaps bring up that the director of the movie herself called it a box office flop as seen here (https://www.boston.com/culture/entertainment/2019/11/19/elizabeth-banks-charlies-angels-box-office) amongst other places.

@Armegon: @Wallyfromdilbert: we haven't heard from you guys in a while, what do you think about this? Davefelmer (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support in adding Davefelmer's new suggestion in the lead. I agree that adding the label is essential and should also be expanded on in the Reception section. There are reliable sources to support it, so there's no reason to exclude it. Armegon (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not support additional content in the lead on this issue without first adding content to the main body. After language is added to the reception section, it can be reviewed and edited based on relevant policies such as WP:V and WP:DUE. Then after appropriate content is supported by the main article body, it will be a lot easier to determine what to put in the lead. I don't think proposals regarding the lead are helpful when the content is not currently supported in the article already. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer, btw, I don't think 15 hours is a long time for a response, but I really appreciate the ping. Please ping away if you ever would like a quicker response by me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Hey, I was actually in the process of replying here when you responded and helped me develop the work in updating a lot of these sources and data on the article page, so thanks for that! I trust we are now aligned in the implimentation of said data on the main page? In which case I now wanted to ask if you had any input or proposal on what exactly to use for the lead now that the relevant info is in the body. I still think upon review of it that a variation of the first sentence I proposed ie "It became regarded as a financial disappointment following a poor opening (citing one of the THR or Independant articles) and is frequently ranked as one of the biggest box office failures of 2019 (citing one of the USA Today or Variety articles)." is the best and most balanced way to go. Upon review though, there isn't much in the way of means or emphasis in the box office section to include the part about the production budget not including marketing costs in the next sentence, so you could argue that one would have to stay as is or we could simply remove the budget part of the comment altogether and merely say "the film grossed $73.3M worldwide" to avoid confusing the general reader that may think the movie made a profit since it made more than the production budget and thus wonder why it was deemed a BO failure. The last sentence only mentioning the film's total gross was also a long standing edit that was only changed to include the production budget for comparison on April 16th by an editor as his sole contribution to the article which then slipped under the cracks.

What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think something like "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and had a poor opening weekend box office. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million, and was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment." would have a more natural flow. My general preference is to try to avoid more loaded terms like "bomb" and "failure" since I think they are often more sensational than encyclopedic, although not always. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A financial disappointment at $57M, yes. Can we neutrally state (and source) that such is the case in the same sentence as the description of the film grossing $73.3 million worldwide? Why not state that the film was regarded as a disappointment at some point while keeping the true gross neutral and free of any unsourced commentary?

How about this? "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. With a $57-million gross at the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million." KyleJoan^talk 03:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this 57M stuff, as already explained, it is entirely irrelevant. The subject of the source is 'the biggest box office bombs of 2019'. It lists Charlie's Angels. That's it and that's all we have to write using that source, nobody needs to quantify it further. One of them doesnt even mention the amount of money it had grossed at the time! You yourself said just two responses of yours ago that you were joking when you first brought this up. Now you're seriously arguing for it multiple times AND editing it into the main page, despite yourself admitting the absurdity of it. Davefelmer (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Both Variety and USA Today reported that the film had grossed $57M in their analyses, so which of the two does not mention the amount of money it had grossed at the time, Davefelmer? We'll just have to agree to disagree about the $57M number being entirely irrelevant, it seems. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I must have missed the note of it in the USA Today article. In any case, the central point here remains which is that the subject of the sources is merely 'the biggest box office bombs of 2019'. It lists Charlie's Angels and so that's all we have to write using those sources. And where is this 'agree to disagree' thing even coming from? You literally recognised the absurdity of the 57M thing at the beginning of this discussion and said you were joking about including it yet are now actually arguing for it repeatedly. Davefelmer (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, both THR and The Independent only affirm that the film bombed during its opening week in the US, therefore, it was deemed a box office bomb/disappointment upon [its] release fails DUE in its depth of detail. In addition, referencing how Banks herself called it a box office flop also needs to meet DUE with regard to the date of the statement (November 19, 2019; exactly four days after the film opened). We can't bundle all of the sources together to synthesize a general commentary as if they all reflect the film's overall performance, and since we're still unable to reliably source whether at $73M the film qualifies as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment, I believe that refraining from categorically assigning the (subjective) label is neither irrelevant nor garbage. More importantly, how is it logical to dismiss my response as my personal take and opinion immediately after asserting that we know it was [a bomb in the end] based on zero sources? Not being snarky, genuinely curious. KyleJoan^talk 01:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, we can play with the wording to determine what fits best and makes the most sense. "Following a poor opening (or opening week), the film was deemed a box office disappointment (or financial failure)" would suffice. As for your central concern of 'we can't bundle all of the sources together to synthesize a general commentary as if they all reflect the film's overall performance, and since we're still unable to reliably source whether at $73M the film qualifies as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment', I once again assure you that we are not doing that. We are quantifying it based on what the reliable sources say. After the movie came out and flopped during it's opening, reliable sources started saying it had 'bombed'. That's a fact, that's what they say, and that DOES NOT state that the movie itself flopped at 73M gross. It states exactly how it was described after it's bad opening. Then, it being ranked as one of the big box office failures of 2019 is, once more, exactly what the sources say. YOU can say they're being rash, it's unfair, they should have judged it later, but they didn't, they judged it then and they listed it as one of the big bombs. And that's what we are saying. The fact that it was widely ranked as one of the big box office bombs of 2019 is reliably sourced FACT. And that's all we are stating, not that it did or didnt bomb at 73M but that it was simply ranked as one of the big bombs of 2019 because that's what the sources say! Davefelmer (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a better alternative: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics. Following a poor opening it was deemed a financial disappointment and it has been widely ranked as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million." That way we remove the mentions of 'bombs' and 'failures', it sounds more encyclopedic and it flows better. What does everyone think about this? @Armegon:@Wallyfromdilbert:@KyleJoan:

I would SUPPORT this as I think it covers all bases as a fair and reliably sourced summary and it addresses all major concerns brought up. Davefelmer (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that the bomb/flop/disappointment label is inappropriate when not qualified with numbers due to the discrepancy between the gross in the analyses and the true gross; likewise is stating in Wikipedia's voice that such a label was assigned widely based on two sources. KyleJoan^talk 04:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

But it isn't inappropriate as that's literally what the sources say. We are using the verbiage of reliable sources, and tailoring it in fact from 'bomb' to 'disappointment' etc to find a compromise that is satisfactory for everyone. We can't really budge any further from there to get the message of the sources across. And the 'widely' remark is based on the fact that there are indeed more sources that rank it amongst the biggest box office bombs/disappointments of 2019. Take Fortune (https://fortune.com/2019/12/23/box-office-flops-2019-charlies-angels-men-in-black-goldfinch-playmobil/) and Digital Spy (https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a30132982/biggest-movie-flops-2019-worst-movies/) for yet more instances. And there are others, I just didnt want to include every single one in the lead or body as that would be quite excessive. Davefelmer (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know if Fortune is reliable, which means widely represents three reliable sources.. KyleJoan^talk 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think Fortune is pretty reliable, is there any precedent or established notion of it not being seen as such? In any case, I could keep finding sources, the point is that there are a lot. But anyways, I appreciate the RfC idea down below however let's wait and see Armegon's and wallyfromdilbert's responses to whether they support the new wording proposed before anyone gets into any of that. Davefelmer (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC proposal

I wanted to gather how everyone in this discussion would feel about an RfC to obtain responses from a wider pool of users. I'm happy that we improved the box office section, but a formal consensus on the lead seems unlikely at this time. An RfC would also allow each of us to propose a paragraph chronicling the film's box office performance to add to the lead. No one is obligated to write one, of course, especially since the major disagreement is only related to how to appropriately attribute the "disappointment" description. An RfC would read as follows:

Which of these versions of a paragraph chronicling Charlie's Angels box office performance in the lead section is the most appropriate for the article?

A. [Armegon's proposal] B. [wallyfromdilbert's proposal] C. [Davefelmer's proposal] D. [My proposal] KyleJoan^talk 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait! We dont even know what Armegon's and wallyfromdilbert's responses are to my proposal above. Let's here whether they SUPPORT or DONT SUPPORT the new wording proposed and if any potential issues are minor enough that they can be ironed out right then and there in the immediate discussion before we decide that it's no good and we all jump into formulating our own paragraphs instead. Davefelmer (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Are we waiting to see whether Armegon and wallyfromdilbert SUPPORT or DONT SUPPORT my proposal as well as whether Armegon SUPPORTs wallyfromdilbert's or just yours? Regarding jumping into formulating our own paragraphs, three out of four of us already did, so what's the issue? Let's also not forget Armegon's canvassing. KyleJoan^talk 06:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, you are just drawing out this entire process. I made a proposal that Armegon was in support of, Wally made a counter-proposal with a few amendaments, I fulfilled those and re-asked him whether he now approves of it, you then intervened and went in a totally different direction before he could answer and are now over-complicating everything. So yes, we are waiting for both Armegon and Wally to vote on my new proposal as I am for it and you are not right? Hence we need deciding votes. If you want to cast your proposal into the hat, remind everyone of it alongside mine. But there's no way I'm going for anything with that 57M rubbish in it so count me against. Davefelmer (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think if there is a dispute, the best course is to leave out any content until it can be agreed upon on the talk page. Some bold edits were not bad I don't think, but I think it would be easier to know how people felt through a discussion here than in edit summaries. It seems like some of the other editors here have more knowledge about this issue, and so I would like to see what other interested parties propose here before chiming in too much more. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Fair enough. So for a start, do you accept the amended proposal I brought up above in light of the critiques you had for the last one that myself and Armegon supported? Just to be clear, I am referring to the proposed wording of, "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics. Following a poor opening it was deemed a financial disappointment and it has been widely ranked as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million." This way addresses your concerns about using the terms 'bomb' and 'failure' as well as sounding more encyclopedic, and it also flows better. Davefelmer (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we're already going to compare proposals, why are we waiting to conduct an RfC? I can easily notify users who have prominently edited this article in the past, and we would end up with more responses regardless of how the request is done. You also never addressed Armegon's canvassing, which brought you to this discussion, and its relation to why an RfC is best in mechanism to move forward with that–and the general discussion–in mind.

This discussion aside, I'd like to ask Davefelmer a few questions:

• You stated in this edit summary that [wallyfromdilbert's] edit was fine. Did you miss how they only restored my revision of the content you unduly added–the exact revision that you previously reverted?
• Per WP:DUPREF, we're supposed to combine precisely duplicated full citations. Did you miss how you repeatedly reverted my attempt to do so?

Looking forward to your response! KyleJoan^talk 06:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good lord dude, this ALWAYS happens with you. As I explained in one whole sentence on my talkpage where I transferred it and where it SHOULD go...yeah man, I missed it, I'm sorry. Go ahead and combine the duplicated full citations. Jesus Davefelmer (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And risk being perceived as edit warring? No, thank you. You know how to self-revert. KyleJoan^talk 07:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I SUPPORT Davefelmer's previous proposal with the few amendaments. Apologies for the late reply. Armegon (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What about mine, Armegon? My proposal reads: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. With a $57-million gross at the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million." KyleJoan^talk 07:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also in support of that proposal, but this is what I was worried about. That we all come up with our own proposals and we either support/oppose of them and we won't be able to agree on anything. Perhaps the RfC proposal may be a good idea? Armegon (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. KyleJoan^talk 07:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Good lord lads, we're gonna be doing this till 2021 at this rate! Let's wait and hear on Wally's verdict between the two takes before we go for the RfC, if he supports one over the other then that's the one we'll go with as it'll have achieved 3/4 consensus either way. If he prefers neither but would take one with a little tweaking, we do that for it and use that one. If he opposes both, it's the RfC. All agreed? Davefelmer (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait on Wally's verdict. Armegon (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to quickly note that WP:CONSENSUS is about reasons and discussion, rather than voting, although obviously I am very flattered if others think my reasons are good ones. That being said, I think KyleJoan's proposal is more neutrally worded because it avoids some of the less encyclopedia characterizations of news copy. I don't think Davefelmer's suggestion is bad, but I do have concerns about the use of the term "widely" when that is being used to characterize our own research rather than what sources explicitly say, especially when the sources being combined seem to be list articles rather than analysis or in-depth reporting. I also think the statement, "Following a poor opening it was deemed a financial disappointment", is problematic as Wikipedia is meant to have a higher standard than newspapers, and I think there is reason to doubt articles that classify a film as a financial disappointment generally when basing it off an opening weekend. KyleJoan's suggestion seems to include the relevant content but avoid some of these other assumptions, and I think it is better for the lead to be written more conservatively when the sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I mentioned previously though, I would be happy to edit the use of 'widely' into just "USA Today and Variety" or even one of them in describing them noting it as one of the big bombs of 2019 for the lead. So the proposed content would instead read, "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. At the end of year, it was ranked by both USA Today and Variety (or we can say just one of them) as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million." That way we remove the 'widely' phrasing, eliminate my main point of contention that being the '57M' rhetoric in KyleJoan's piece and combine the two in a way using all of the main agreed-to parts of the proposals. What does everyone think about this as a sort of final question? @Wallyfromdilbert: @KyleJoan: @Armegon:

If people still prefer KyleJoan's previously proposed version instead of this amended one, we will go with that one and I'll go and add it into the main article page. Otherwise, if people like this one more, I can similarly go and add it in instead. Let me know what you think! Davefelmer (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I support the new version Davefelmer just mentioned. Armegon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Armegon (talk)! Obviously I support this version as well. I was next anticipating a response from wallyfromdilbert as we were active in discussion and he was active on this very page just a short while ago, but I just checked now and he appears to have gotten a ban.....so I presume he will not be rejoining this discussion for the time being unfortunately. Thus, it looks like it's gonna come down to whether @KyleJoan: agrees with this version or not. Not the easiest sell as in my experience he typically likes to stick to his proposed lines of wording, but note that I am willing to tweak this proposed version further, including by reducing it to just one of the sources for saying it was one of the big box office disappointments of 2019 so as to not imply it was everyone saying it as KyleJ appeared to want to avoid.

Otherwise, we'll have to go down the RfC route. We each submit a version if we so choose, or show our support for a version after it is published, and wait for more editors to drop in and give their input until a consensus is formed. Davefelmer (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Before anything else, characterizing an accurate reflection of the two sources' reported gross as a rhetoric isn't neutral. Let's all adhere to WP:NEUTRALEDIT and write about all facts and opinions neutrally. That aside, Davefelmer's new proposal does not eliminate [the] main point of contention in that the "box office disappointment" label remains inappropriate when not qualified with numbers due to the discrepancy between the gross in the analyses and the true gross. Sounds like we have an RfC on our hands. KyleJoan^talk 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK then. Please see the RFC below. Davefelmer (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop it guys,

And Dave, don't violate, WP:TPO, this is your only warning. Govvy (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello mate, I thought I didnt! He said "this discussion aside" at the beginning of his point so I just thought it would be best served to take it to my talkpage and quickly answer his point there rather than clutter up our already extensive discussion with stray points. You can see from my history that I just moved it to my page and pinged him that I had, but I've gone ahead and given my simple response on this page too. Davefelmer (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, you can't move someone else's comments, that still violates TPO, Govvy (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Gotcha Davefelmer (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC about what content to put in the lead

Based on the discussions above and sources presented, we've narrowed it down to two proposals:

Option One: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. It was ranked by both USA Today and Variety as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million."

Option Two: "Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. With a $57-million gross at the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million."

Please read through the 3rd discussion section on the page and vote for either option that was formulated from those talks, or suggest one over the other but with some tweaking if you would like to offer any new input that we can then look into implementing.

OPTION ONE Davefelmer (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: With all due respect, this is not the proper way to conduct an RfC. Would you like me to do it since I'm quite experienced at it? In relation, would you like to make any final tweaks to your proposal before I actually put it as an option? You also have not asked whether Armegon would like to propose a paragraph. KyleJoan^talk 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OK sure, set it up. As for my proposal, you can put this forward as my option. Davefelmer (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Great. Would you like to propose a paragraph or would you accept the existing two options for the RfC, Armegon? KyleJoan^talk 03:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You could put option 1 as my option for support. Armegon (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is located in the following section. Do feel free to state your respective views there in any format you prefer; I personally like using a bullet point myself. Below is an example if either of you would like to see one. Thank you all!

• Support Option X per Y policy. Z reason also bears consideration. KyleJoan^talk 04:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about box office performance in the lead

Which of the two versions of a paragraph chronicling Charlie's Angels' box office performance is more appropriate for the lead section? KyleJoan^talk 04:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Option One: Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. It was ranked by both USA Today and Variety as one of the biggest box-office disappointments of 2019. The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48-55 million.

Option Two: Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. With a $57-million gross at the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million.

• option one. It's the strongest of the two. Armegon (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option One. Most accurately reflects the central points of the sources covered per WP:DUE and flows better in my opinion. Davefelmer (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option Two as proposer per WP:DUE, specifically depth of detail. It's important to specify the gross in the publications' analyses due to the discrepancy between said gross and the film's true gross. KyleJoan^talk 09:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option Two seems more neutral, it didn't do too badly overall, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: so it seems we have a tie. How do we settle this? Armegon (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait for more votes! As you can see, they're still coming in. Davefelmer (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option Two [REVISED see below] However, I think it should end with the wording “, excluding marketing and distribution costs.” NoMagicSpells^talk 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Support for adding “excluding marketing and distribution costs.” Armegon (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• option one - In reading up on movies and their budgets the $57m is completely misleading (and as such WP:DUE because it ignores the additional costs that are beyond the production budget. The marketing and distribution costs can dwarf a budget the size of CA2019, so including it makes it seem like it made money when that is highly unlikely. The M&D costs easily could be $50-100M. The film performed so poorly that its marketing was cut. Checkout this article here and most of those costs were expended in 2019 which the $57M does not recognize. I agree that the excluding M&D should be included because a casual reader may not know that the actual cost for the movie far exceeds the $48M production budget. That's actually how "budget" should be changed on all wikipedia film pages to "production budget" for clarity. ToeFungii (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: ToeFungii has been checkuser-blocked. KyleJoan^talk 04:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: OK so it appears it's 3-2 in favour of option one but with a caveat for potentially making it 3-3 if option 2 makes a small addition. In any case, there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other. Armegon has however shown support for the proposed addition to option 2, and I likewise would support such an inclusion. I would thus not be opposed to using option two if the addition is made, as long as the 57M comment at the start of the second sentence is also removed. 57M is 80% of the movie's eventual total gross and it serves no purpose to include it here as trajectories for financial performance are made clear and thus categorized and noted in reliable sources before a film completes exactly 100% of it's total gross. Applying this kind of standard for movies where we start noting things as being said when the movie had completed 94%, 92%, 96%, 89% or 99% of it's total gross would just make unnecessary and illogical implications and create a mess. Thus, I would support a slightly amended version of option 2 reading, Charlie's Angels was theatrically released in the United States on November 15, 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a poor opening weekend box office performance. At the end of the year, the film was cited by several publications as a financial disappointment. It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated budget of $48–55 million, not including marketing and distribution costs. What do people think about this? Davefelmer (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC) @Armegon:@NoMagicSpells: @ToeFungii: @Atlantic306:

So would this technically be option three? Armegon (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess so, more of a compromise that hopefully addresses all raised concerns. At 3-2 or 3-3 it's gonna be tough to get a clear consensus for one option vs the other and we don't want to be doing this forever and ultimately get nowhere and I feel we're all here in good faith to come up with a fair and balanced summary so I'm hoping this version will speak to all the points brought up by everyone and work. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposing to change "budget" to "production budget" on all film articles is not within the scope of this RfC. In relation, nothing that comes out of this RfC applies any kind of standard for movies. We're also not responsible for what casual readers know about film budgeting because what is a mess is overexplaining what an estimated budget includes and excludes, which–in relation to this article–would read, "Charlie's Angels eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated net budget [per this Deadline Hollywood report] of $48–55 million, which includes talent, filming, post-production, and insurance costs; an unknown gross budget; and an estimated marketing and distribution budget of $50 million". That aside, the RfC has only been up for four days, so rather than hastily force a consensus from six responses, how about we let the RfC run for as long as it needs to in order to obtain as many responses as it can obtain? KyleJoan^talk 06:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It would require some re-working, but I think the estimated $50M M&D budget should be included with this sentence or at the very least they be contiguous. This sentence alone by itself makes it appear to a casual reader that it made money when it definitely did not. And I have an obvious difference of opinion with respect that the purpose of WP is to inform people. And I think some more time should be given for the RfC. Four days is not enough. At a minimum it should be a week and prefer at least 10 days so that it would cover two weekends for potential commenters. I'm basing this in part on what I guess is the RfC guru's advice to me with respect to a RfC that I'm doing. ToeFungii (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 is written better ~ HAL333 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option One is more captivating and covers the major details required. Idealigic (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Now that we know that the prints and advertising (P&A) a.k.a. the marketing and distribution budget was reduced from $100m to $50m, [7] these estimated figures can be included in the lead. I therefore suggest both Options 1 or 2 to have the final sentence as:

It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48–55 million including an estimated marketing and distribution budget of $50 million.

Putting these figures together would confirm the film made a loss. --NoMagicSpells^talk 06:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT in adding the P&A budget as well. Armegon (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoMagicSpells: Can you provide a source that verifies that the film made a loss? KyleJoan^talk 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan:I think they're referring to this article by Deadline, stating that a budget of $100M was planned for global P&A but was reduced to $50M. Armegon (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Armegon: Right, but they said that attaching the P&A figure to the proposals would confirm the film made a loss. WP:SYN explicitly states that we should not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, so if there isn't a source that verifies that the film made a loss, then it would be inappropriate to attach the P&A figure to "confirm" such a claim. KyleJoan^talk 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, so we won't be adding the word "loss" to the lead to imply or confirm anything. NoMagicSpells suggested adding "including an estimated marketing and distribution budget of $50 million," which is confirmed by the Deadline report. Though I suggest we change "marketing and distribution" to "print and advertisement" to match the source. Armegon (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you change "production budget" to "net budget" to match the source as well? KyleJoan^talk 07:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT in changing "production budget" to "net budget" since it's verified by the source. Armegon (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT I concur with Armegon’s comments. I agree to both amendments to the suggested final sentence. --NoMagicSpells^talk 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoMagicSpells @Armegon: Revising the two proposals would mean that we would have to start the RfC all over again. There's also no telling that the users who already responded would change their !votes (or would care to do so), especially since most of them (including myself) never raised any issues with the existing options. If the two of you would like to compose a third option–as Armegon already referenced–you're more than welcome to do so. If not, let the RfC take place and trust that your suggestions are already documented in the discussion for other users to consider in deciding their !votes. KyleJoan^talk 10:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So long as the final gross; net budget; and P&A budget details are included in the eventual consensus option, and remains neutral as clarified by Armegon, then I am content.

P.S. I’m not a daily editor so pinging me won’t get an urgent response therefore this RfC may take longer if you value my contribution. If you want to close this RfC more quickly then this is my final comment on the matter. Good luck folks on an amicable outcome.--NoMagicSpells^talk 12:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a second rfc truly necessary? We're only adding the P&A cost to either proposed options. Armegon (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How are we ever going to generate a consensus if we keep moving the goalpost based on what each response suggests we add/remove? I, for one, would love to add that the film has earned $2.5M from DVD and Blu-ray sales domestically, but I don't see the point of demanding that the two proposals be changed to incorporate my suggestion in order for one to earn my support. Of course every !vote is taken into consideration, and yes, consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, but it does not always accommodate it per WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. KyleJoan^talk 17:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I guess we should proceed with the second rfc then. Armegon (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously we are not going to open ANOTHER RfC. Let's stop turning this into a total farce. As KyleJoan^talk says, let's leave it up for now and wait a little while to see where people stand on the given options and if we can form a consensus now that a lot of votes have come in. When one reaches consensus and gets put up, if you have any additional suggestions for it, THEN you should bring those to the talkpage and we can have a seperate discussion about adding them in. If you want though, you can always insert a third option into this RfC as was suggested at the start. But I personally wouldnt advise for it since we're getting a lot of votes for the ones already up and a third one that is basically the second one with one little additional change is a little silly and will open the door for a bunch more versions being listed when someone decides on a minor change to one of the two already up. Let's save those suggestions for a seperate debate if it needs to be had after this RfC. Davefelmer (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems there's 4 in support of option 1 and 3 in support of option 2. So I guess we proceed with option 1 since the consensus is in favor of it. Armegon (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus. What's the rush, Armegon? KyleJoan^talk 04:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There isn't 4 in favour of 1 and 3 in favour of 2. There's 4 in favour of 1 and 2 in favour of option 2, as NoMagicSpells' vote came with a caveat, and altering the option to fit in that caveat would mean it loses consensus with the other users that voted for the option in the way it was. But KyleJoan is right, there's no rush and we should wait a bit longer for any more votes to come in, at least over the weekend and potentially the start of the week. By then the RfC would have been up for almost 2 weeks and that's an ample amount of time for anyone that wants to get involved to do so. After that if need be we can reach out again to NoMagicSpells for clarification of a concrete stance on whether he's for either option as they currently are and if he's for neither without amendments or for option 1, we'll use option 1. Otherwise, if more votes come in to change the complexion of the RfC, we'll take those into consideration as they come in respectfully. Davefelmer (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK so the RfC has now been up for essentially two weeks, through two weekends and we've had no new responses to it in a week. Anyone that has wanted to contribute has now had ample time and opportunity to do so and it's clear that the page has gone cold. As 4/6 editors to give categorical opinions supported option 1, I will be putting option 1 up. Let me know if you have any lasting suggestions or comments. If you'd like to make any adjustments or tweaks to option 1 once it is up, please start a seperate discussion for that as this RfC has purely been between the two options presented in their original form. Otherwise, cheers and best to all, Davefelmer (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is if both options include the P&A details then I would choose Option 2. Since neither have the amendment then I don’t think the final sentence is fit for purpose, therefore in my view, invalidating both options.

KyleJoan says that it would be “moving the goalpost” (not sure why that analogy was used as a consensus as it is not about winning or losing). I therefore disagree. These options are about the film’s initial theatrical run and its success, not whether it recouped its money in the ancillary market over a longer time period. Having only partial information about the film’s costs during its theatrical run in the lead would be wrong since we now know the P&A details.

Judging from the comments by the other editors who have voted they don’t seem to be aware of the P&A details.

@Davefelmer if we have to restart the RfC then so be it. I don’t think it’s farcical to do so; it’s about getting it right. Alternatively, you can ping all the other three editors who voted and make them aware of a change and seek their agreement.

From my understanding the final sentence for BOTH options should be worded as follows:

It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated net budget of $48–55 million including an estimated prints and advertising (P&A) budget of $50 million.

Don’t expect a quick response from me if you want further comments. --NoMagicSpells^talk 20:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What you're talking about can be inserted later on though, after we've come to a conclusion on which version to use initially. When one is selected as a product of our discussions on here, you can then open a seperate discussion to include your pitched information at the end of it and see what editors respond with their thoughts (or you can attempt to make a bold edit on the main article and see if any issues are raised through that). It is essentially just a minor note added to the end of a sentence, we dont need to restart or create a new RfC over it. The simple question I want clarity on before we decide on what the next step is, is one: which of the two proposed versions for the lead in this RfC do you prefer WITHOUT further amendments? Those can come later, but purely looking at the two options we've been voting on, if you could not edit in your preferred ending onto one nor the other, which do you find better suited for the lead in the way they are written at present? Davefelmer (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option One In retrospect, without the amendment, I think the figures need to be clear at the end of the film’s theatrical run. I’ve put a strikethrough on my original option choice. Editors should expect a bold edit to include the P&A details in the final sentence once this RfC has ended if it is not added here.--NoMagicSpells^talk 06:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoMagicSpells: I'm confused. How is option two unclear about the figures . . . at the end of the film's theatrical run when the only difference between the two options in relation to the sentence in question is the production budget description. It's not like the two options state different final gross earnings? Also, there's no consensus to add P&A details in the final sentence, so a bold edit adding such information would be done sans consensus. Not only that, if you're planning to add your proposed P&A details anyway, why would you change your stance? You're essentially saying, "I prefer option two with this amendment. Without the amendment, I prefer option one, but I'm going to end up adding my amendment anyway." How does that make any sense? KyleJoan^talk 07:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to say NoMagicSpells can't make a bold edit following the RfC, as his/her point of interest revolves around a mere half sentence. If that ends up being reverted or disagreed with by anyone, it can always be taken to the talkpage in a seperate discussion to see who agrees with or has any general feedback for including it there. Davefelmer (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option One' is better written. Pikavoom (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan You only need the gross figure of $73.3m at the end of the theatrical run. Adding a year-end gross of $57m is unnecessary. We now know the final gross; net budget; and P&A budget. That’s all that is required to provide clarity on the figures by the end of the film’s theatrical run. It makes sense to review my original choice when more information comes to light i.e. P&A details.--NoMagicSpells^talk 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The year-end gross of $57m has nothing to do with the gross figure of $73.3m at the end of the theatrical run; the $57M figure qualifies when the film was deemed a financial disappointment. I also fail to understand how the P&A budget helps provide clarity on the figures by the end of the film’s theatrical run. The film grossing $73.3M seems pretty clear to me, but maybe I'm just sloppy in my comprehension of the discussion. KyleJoan^talk 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think nomagicspells just means it in the context of further establishing the film's box office performance without needing to put a specific label to it. So noting how the film made 73M against a 48-55M production budget and a 50M advertising budget. The wording on his proposed line would have to change to 'It eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated PRODUCTION budget of $48–55 million AND an estimated prints and advertising (P&A) budget of $50 million' unless he means to imply that the advertising budget is contained WITHIN the production budget, but that would make little sense as it would mean the film's entire production budget was 5M lol. So that's how I interpret it, unless I'm reading it wrong. Davefelmer (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still in support of option one, with adding the P&A cost to it. Add it to a new rfc, if necessary. It's essential to note how much was invested (production/P&A budget) and how much was earned back (overall gross) to illustrate the financial scope to readers. Armegon (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about necessarily starting a new RfC, just start a new discussion and see what editors get involved and what they think about it. This RfC is over anyways and you dont need every editor that was involved in it to then be involved in any new discussion. But if it ends up being a case where there's significant debate for both sides on adding the P&A note, THEN you can start an RfC on whether to include it or not. In my opinion that's the best way to approach it. Davefelmer (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Right. I've already stipulated whether a second rfc is even necessary. I still believe it's not. All we're doing is adding the P&A cost to one of the two offered options. It's not like we're rewriting the options all together. P&A is also taken into account when determining a film's box office success/failure. So I see no reason why it shouldn't be added as well. Armegon (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding note about the marketing budget to the intro

Just realised we never got around to this point after the resolution of the RfC last month! The proposition was to expand the final line in the intro from The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48–55 million to The film eventually grossed $73.3 million worldwide against an estimated production budget of $48–55 million and an estimated advertising budget of $50 million, in reference to I believe this source [8] amongst others. @Armegon: @NoMagicSpells: @KyleJoan: You were the other editors that expressed interest in discussing this information in the previous thread, so what are your definitive thoughts on whether to include it or not? I also invite any other editor that took part in the prior RfC to give their input if they so choose, as well as anyone else visiting this page.

Upon review, I would support the addition to the intro as it is well sourced and the relevant link is already in the body of the article. Davefelmer (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support in adding the P&A cost in the lead. P&A is taken into account when judging a film's box office success, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in the lead. It's notable. Armegon (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support I concur with the above comments regarding the P&A costs as this will provide clarity on the film’s box office performance. --NoMagicSpells^talk 11:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Banks' response to box office performance

Should we add Banks' response to the box office performance somewhere in the article? Possibly in the critical response section. Since Banks was the writer and director, her comments about the film's box office performance seem worth noting. This IndieWire article seems verified enough to cite. @User talk:Davefelmer @NoMagicSpells:@KyleJoan: Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A statement from Banks is already in the box office section. The IndieWire article does not even contain Banks' response to the box office performance, as her statement in the article was made prior to the film's release. She's also not a film critic, so I'm not sure why the critical response section should include any commentary from her. That aside, Armegon, I understand that I was pinged in the previous discussion by Davefelmer because I had expressed interest in discussing that matter, but seeing as I didn't respond there, why was I pinged here? Why not ping only Davefelmer and NoMagicSpells per that discussion? KyleJoan^talk 03:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. I could've sworn she made these comments after the film's release. In that case, please disregard my previous suggestion. I apologize for any inconveniences. Armegon (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Indiewire her statement to the Herald Sun (link to original HS source dead/paywalled) was "proving to be somewhat controversial" (therefore WP:NOTABLE, and there are other sources also indicate it caused controversy on social media[9]). Even though she said it before the film was released it might still be worth including her statement as it indicates what she thought might happen. I'd pair the quote "If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies"[10] with her reaction afterwards, that she was still proud of the film in any case.

Despite that I do think the more important point was made by Deadline when they said this film was "one quadrant movie"[11] i.e. it had a limited potential audience to begin with. -- 109.78.198.70 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)