TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

StarSword Since: Sep, 2011
2025-02-09 20:20:06

The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that the listed budget is just production expenses: marketing costs are reported less often and, with mainstream productions, are typically around the same again as the production budget. Meaning that this film only made back 0.75 of what it cost to both make and market it.

Trust me, I'm an engineer!
Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-09 20:39:21

Modern day for a mainstream movie, yes. But this doesn't seem like a it was such a heavily promoted movie, and from a time before modern licensing/other expanses.

Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-10 00:17:07

If it fails to make real profit, or flops hard enough to kill any sequels isn't that bombing?

Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-10 05:30:32

From Presumed Flop

  • The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part has often been described as a bomb by movie journalists. Its $192 $199 million gross was a severe disappointment, especially compared to how successful the first movie was, but it still ended up just barely earning back its $90 million budget in theaters (and toy sales put it firmly in the black). This still wasn't enough for Warner Bros. though, and they let their rights to the franchise lapse.

Failing to turn a profit/killing the franchise for different reasons than not making back production budget seems against the spirit of Bomb.

Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-10 06:48:04

On the example page for Box-Office Bomb, one of the qualifiers is "failed to turn a profit". Wouldn't this movie count?

Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-10 09:05:13

But it did turn a profit at the box office. We've cut BOB examples that had less than the 50% margins this one got.

If it bombed outside the box office (other expenses, profitable but just not enough to be considered successful), does it not fit the Box Office part of BOB? Also without sources/figures for other expenses, it seems overly speculative to say if it bombed due to them, especially since such works tend to attack bad faith edits.

dcutter2 Since: Sep, 2013
2025-02-10 09:11:30

No, it didn't turn a profit. That's the point. If nothing else because $1 of Box Office revenue is not equal to $1 of Budget because it doesn't all go back to the production company. The cinemas take a cut etc.

This has been argued again and again in Box office clean up thread to no avail.

Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-10 09:15:00

^If we had exact figures for such/how much it lost, I'd be inclined to accept that. But we don't so if it was a BOB or failed for other reasons is speculative.

Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-10 12:51:34

It failed enough to be considered a flop. It failed enough to kill any talk of a sequel, and for a very popular novety line that's something. If it flops, doesnt profit AND does'nt recoup losses not even hitting cinemas in some countries and going straight to home video isn't that bombing?

Edited by Tuvok
Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-10 13:11:38

^Bomb, yes. Box Office Bomb, it could have earned its production budget back but failed for other reasons.

The Emoji Movie was similarly reviled and killed any future installments, but it still made back enough not to ultimately not bomb at box office, the bombing happened out of it.

StarSword Since: Sep, 2011
2025-02-11 11:41:47

^Our Box-Office Bomb page only cares about profitability. Whether it was an Acclaimed Flop or panned by critics and audiences isn't relevant.

Trust me, I'm an engineer!
Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-12 05:28:45

^That's the issue with the Garbage Pail Kids entry, it's all about the negative reaction to it rather than saying it lost money. (A lot of BOB go into reaction beyond what seems valid for Trivia, but that's another matter.)

If it gave a citation/figure for how much it lost despite making budget back at box office, it would be valid. But it doesn't, so that's speculative, and seems like all the commercial failure was due to reception tainting the brand/creators more/rather than not making back budget.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught
Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-12 07:40:24

The reviews were terrible. Audiance response likewise. The commercial failure was people NOT watching the movie. Considering the subject matter and tone is not surprising. It was a terrible movie the masses choose not to watch. Numbers wise it flopped hence no sequel. Flop=bomb which fits the trope as is.

Edited by Tuvok
Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-12 07:52:13

I think this helps

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr3391902213/

Cost to make a million USD

Final earnings

$1,576,615 global.

This does not include marketing, distribution, licensing, taxes etc

The percentage that goes to the producer, not to mention earnings split between the studio and the Tops company. The ones who made the movie and the company that owns the GPK.

With that many hands out,the movie needed to make twice its budget to break even. Three times that to even profit.

A $576,615 endrun doesn't come close.

Edited by Tuvok
dcutter2 Since: Sep, 2013
2025-02-12 08:55:16

I don't there's a dispute about the budget or box office. Just whether the two times budget rules applies to Box-Office Bomb or not.

Certainly I can't find any factual articles saying the company lost money beyond this, like Atlantic Entertain Groups financial records, just a few articles following the same logic about budget v box office.

Tuvok Since: Feb, 2010
2025-02-12 09:36:37

Apologies, I thought it fit because one of the markers for Box-Office Bomb was failure to turn a profit

Edited by Tuvok
dcutter2 Since: Sep, 2013
2025-02-12 09:47:50

^ No need to apologise. I think it fits too been arguing that it probably didn't make a profit. Just trying to see Ferot_Dreadnought's side too.

Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-12 10:28:43

Flopping doesn't mean it fits the technical definition of bomb. The widespread use of flop or bomb rarely considers the costs of marketing/licensing that requires works earn much more than their budget to be successful.

Doing poorly at box office and killing the franchise is Franchise Killer, not Box-Office Bomb, which as stated prior is just about box office returns, which for this were greater than the stated budget meaning the bombing was outside the box office. (If the extra costs of marketing a such was known, it would be valid to include, but without it seems too speculative for a Trivia item.)

If the work was an Acclaimed Flop that did as bad at box office but didn't cause the loss of goodwill it did, would we consider it a bomb as opposed to just commercial failure if it made back as much more than it's budget as they did?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught
dcutter2 Since: Sep, 2013
2025-02-12 11:06:25

Again, this just comes down to the definition of Box-Office Bomb, why are we going around on circles on this?

The definition on the page is "A Box Office Bomb (or flop, failure, or disaster) is a movie for which production and marketing cost greatly exceeds its gross revenue, ergo fails to turn a profit for the studio behind the film."

Obviously the wiggle room there is what "greatly" means. As we've been saying Garbage Pail kids probably didn't make a profit. Again having greater box office than budget doesn't make it profitable. Do you disagree with this point?

Even the page image shows that the losses of the picture film are much more than difference between budget and box office.

Edited by dcutter2
Ghilz Since: Jan, 2001
2025-02-12 11:08:47

Maybe ya'll should open a trope talk or take this to is this an example rather than spamming Ask The Tropers about the honor or success of a mostly forgotten movie.

dcutter2 Since: Sep, 2013
2025-02-12 11:14:06

I've always been fuzzy on why discussing things here for "too long" is considered bad? Isn't that what this function is for?

Ghilz Since: Jan, 2001
2025-02-12 11:20:24

Bunch of people have this page on watchlist, so each time you post it shows to everyone as if there's a new entry as the watchlist doesn't distinguish between new replies and new post. Which means each time people check coz it could be someone asking a legit question, reporting some ongoing issue.

Or ya know, arguing about the garbage pail kids success. Something that can be done on any dedicated thread.

Ferot_Dreadnaught Since: Mar, 2015
2025-02-12 13:10:17

Asked Is this an example? per this thread’s recommendation.

Locking this as any further thoughts should be taken there.

Top