Talk:The Marvels

Do we need so much pushback back against Iger's comment?

Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects. Others felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments. Gizmodo's James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird", and he noted that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

Can we trim it down to Disney CEO Bob Iger also attributed the film's failure to the large amount of MCU content that Disney had produced for its streaming service, but he added that insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame as well. Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office.

It removes "with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this time.

It removes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" since this is only sourced as an opinion from James Whitbrook.

It removes "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird"" since this reads like a teenager writing, and again is just from Whitbrook. Tikaboo (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The first bit you want to remove is very relevant, as it contradicts his point. The next bit you want to remove is a set of facts, not an opinion, which give important context to the comments. The last bit is just an opinion, but I don't think it is inappropriate to finish the paragraph with a direct response to Iger's comment. We could replace it with a different, similar opinion but I personally don't see the need for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For the first bit, Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. I'm not understanding the contradiction. As for the second bit, it's not a fact that she's been unfairly targeted, or even "targeted" at all. Some things happened that were commented upon, calling it an unfair targetting of the director is an opinion from Whitbrook. For the third bit, why do we need to replace it at all? Is it really necessary to have three sentences attacking Iger? Two of which are just from the rando Whitbrook. Tikaboo (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see enough justification for removing relevant commentary. Commentary and perspectives from these sites and figures such as Whitbrook help make up the backbone of sections for our readers so they are provided with detailed discussion and analysis of the cited material, rather than only just including the facts or statements from officially involved persons. Outside perspectives from commentators enhance the articles, not detract. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with adamstom97 that there's an appropriate amount of detail & industry response on Iger's comment. Whitbrook isn't some rando - he's the Deputy Editor of io9/Gizmodo so including his commentary makes sense in a Reception section. As Trailblazer101 pointed out, this type of commentary is pretty standard in such sections (see also the spectrum of views included in the critical response subsection). Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I did include outside perspectives in my proposal "Some commentators felt Iger was wrongfully putting all of the blame on DaCosta, noting that The Marvels was not Disney's only 2023 film to fail at the box office."

For the three things I proposed to remove, can someone explain why the first one shouldn't be removed? Iger said there wasn't the usual executive oversight because of Covid, and then we're saying they're known for having a lot of oversight on their projects. There's no actual contradiction there. I've read the sources for this statement and it doesn't fit either so seems like a wiki editor made a mistake trying to include their responses to the oversight comment.

For the second one "and noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" We should specifically attribute this to Whitbrook's opinion if it's kept in. And I think there are other good reasons for not including it at all. His first example of Disney unfairly targeting the director is from this: https://variety.com/2023/film/features/marvel-jonathan-majors-problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/ but we don't know if it's from Disney, Variety only says it's from a source "familiar with the production".

If we do include his "unfairly targeted" allegation then I don't think it's good enough to leave what those are unsaid. This is his example: "DaCosta began working on another film while “The Marvels” was still in postproduction — the filmmaker moved to London earlier this year to begin prepping for her Tessa Thompson drama “Hedda.” (A representative for DaCosta declined to comment.) “If you’re directing a $250 million movie, it’s kind of weird for the director to leave with a few months to go,” says a source familiar with the production." To be honest I'm surprised this isn't in the article anyway.

The other example is the director missing the premiere for her birthday https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/why-marvels-director-nia-dacosta-missed-cast-crew-screening-1235648288/ which is sourced to "according to miffed Marvel staffers grumbling at the Nov. 8 screening," which again is a stretch to attribute it to Disney, given their description as "Marvel staffers". Could be any low level person.

The third one: "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird" well again, other than sounding like high schooler, it's just unnecessary, and as we've seen his evidence for Disney doing these public critiques is just guesses. Tikaboo (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tikaboo: the fact that no one has responded to this comment is not indication that consensus is in your favour. I and the other editors in this thread have explained why we oppose your changes and have not been convinced by this latest comment. Unless other editors who support your position want to get involved, consensus is to not make these changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me know what I'm missing with my last comment, I'm open to being wrong. Tikaboo (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We have already explained why we are opposed to your changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

And I addressed them in detail, could you respond to them? Tikaboo (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

agree with all your edits. Especially removing the opinions and poorly worded items from unnamed sources. Very much not in line with the article being based on facts and good sources Holydiver82 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant commentary on the studio's handling of the film's performance. It is common to include what reliable websites state in their commentary pieces about these things. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

since when has the article on the marvels followed "what is common" instead of requiring extremely good sources to make claims? how is gossip from unnamed sources relevant information for an article about the film? Holydiver82 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't require secondary sources to name their sources; the point of reliable sources is that we (as Wikipedia editors) trust that these sources have done their due diligence before publishing articles. In this case, we have an event (Iger's comments) and then industry outlets (such as Gizmodo & Vanity Fair) commenting on the event. Their analysis is relevant because we don't assume a primary source's (ie. Iger's) explanation of events is true; we go to secondary sources which can evaluate the truth (ie. is this corporate spin?). This article is following an incredibly common process. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Holydiver82 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in no way relevant to Sariel's comment, which was a very clear explanation for why we are including additional commentary and context for Iger's comments. The more appropriate link here may be WP:IDONTLIKEIT as that is how you are starting to sound. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

other articles do it is not a reason to include it in this article. editors commenting on here have been around long enough to know that.LOL. if that is the only reason to include gossip from unnamed sources you probably should try a bit harder. including it very much is failing into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Holydiver82 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying we should do this because it is done at other articles, we are saying it is a common practice because it is correct and that is why it is being done here as well. You are intentionally misrepresenting our arguments to try to discredit everyone else, which isn't going to get us to change our minds. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think everyone has tried to act in good faith towards a newer editor who is very focused on editing a narrow segment in articles and rehasing arguments about those sections (see breakdown of Holydiver82's edit history). We've all walked through basic policies and processes both in this discussion & previous ones but I agree with adamstom97 that Holydiver82 is intentionally misrepresenting other editors especially when they quote random essays that don't prove their point (ie. WP:BLUDGEONING behavior). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone who wants to keep the current wording address what I said? Tikaboo (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tikaboo You still don't have any consensus to reimplement your changes. Silence is the weakest form of consensus, so implying since no one has responded means you can add it is completely wrong and not how Wikipedia works. If you wanted a response, you could always ping an involved editor. Remember, we all have other commitments and cannot always respond when most convenient for one party or another. I still don't see how trimming down this information is beneficial as it limits our readers from reading what publications have commented about Iger's comments. Sometimes, less is not always more. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The editors all came in to respond to holydiver so I don't think it's because of a lack of a ping. Maybe you could respond?

It removes "with some pointing out that Marvel is known for having a lot of executive oversight on all of their projects" which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment is that there wasn't enough oversight this time.

It rewords slightly and attributes "noted several instances where DaCosta had appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney before Iger's comments" to Whitbrook since he's the one making the claim, not "multiple commentators"

It removes "James Whitbrook said the studio's "increasingly public critiques of DaCosta are just starting to feel weird" since that comment is a repeat of the slightly reworded statement above. Tikaboo (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

a) "which is irrelevant given the Iger's comment" - that's a primary source's narrative on what occurred with secondary sources pushing back on that

b) "Whitbrook since he's the one making the claim" - the entire sentence has 4 sources with second half citing Gizmodo (Whitbrook) & Vanity Fair

c) I think direct commentary from a secondary source on the behavior of those involved (Iger in this case) is useful; these sections are typically a mix of paraphrasing and short quotes. Given your previous argument against Whitbrook, it mostly feels like you're coming up with another reason because you just don't like the source.

Your argument continues to be "we should just take the primary source for its word" and we should have minimal secondary analysis of it. The previous discussion outlined why I (and other editors) think the section works & why we disagree with your argument on removing analysis; you haven't really come up with a new argument so I didn't respond because I didn't think it needed to be rehashed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is important to point out that Marvel is known for a lot of oversight because it contradicts Iger's comment, we don't just take his word for it. The "unfairly targeted" comment is clearly attributed to multiple sources, and the last line from Whitbrook has been defended multiple times in this discussion already. As has been pointed out several times, other editors do not agree with these attempted changes. Just because we are losing interest in responding to the same arguments does not mean you have consensus to make the changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding to both of you here, there's no secondary source pushing back on the oversight comment as far as I can tell, maybe you can link it with the quote? And again, pointing out that Disney usually has a lot of oversight on their projects doesn't contradict Iger at all, as Iger is saying that in this specific case there wasn't the usual oversight.

Can you point out in the sources who else is claiming that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? From my reading of the sources only Whitbrook is making the claim. Tikaboo (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think how the article has presently addressed all the different claims is an accurate assessment and compilation of the information available. From my experience, more details are better when handling commentary as it allows us to provide readers with varying perspectives and conclusions about the material present, rather than trying to chop it down, which risks potentially sugarcoating the details or leaving out some crucial or useful elements. I don't see how trimming this down would benefit our readers, nor do I think it is overly long enough to warrant such a reduction in the commentary already written. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, the comment above yours addresses why I trimmed and reworded it. Tikaboo (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My point still stands. I'm not convinced by arguments to condense the information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well the oversight thing appears to be unsourced, and again, the point is Iger is saying there wasn't enough oversight on this film, so then responding well there's usually oversight on Disney films is a complete non-sequitur. Wikipedia stating "multiple sources" are saying that Disney has been unfairly targeting the director is also unsourced, it's only a poorly sourced opinion from Whitbrook. Could you please address any of these points? If you can't then I'd ask you don't revert again. Tikaboo (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I already explained my opposition to this. You repeatedly asking for further explanation won't convince me to then support the changes you want. Per WP:Bold, revert, discuss, you made the WP:BOLD change which was reverted, so it is up to you to garner a consensus (which doesn't seem likely to be in your favor). Therefore, if you do reimplement your preferred changes again, it will be reverted. That's how this works. Not everyone is going to agree with you and you won't always get your proposals implemented. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You can just say "hey, by bad for reverting, I didn't know you were fixing unsourced, incorrect statements". Tikaboo (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

To imply these statements as "unsourced" or "incorrect" is inaccurate based on the cited sources themselves and what has been explained to you in this very discussion. Consensus is not in your favor here. Your removal was by no means a fix of the material. No means no. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You could point to me where the oversight statement is sourced from, and where "multiple commentators" say that the director has been unfairly targeted in the past by Disney? So far nobody has managed to do so. Tikaboo (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these are clearly sourced in the article and you are showing bad faith by pretending not to see that as a way to continue this argument when it is clear that consensus is against you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There are little numbers at the end of the sentences with links to articles, but the content in the articles don't support what's written in the Wikipedia page. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing for it to get through. Everybody here just puts their fingers in their ears in response. Tikaboo (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

After Sariel provided some more sources commenting on this situation, I saw that they had some good stuff in them and updated the paragraph to include some of that. This includes better wording and more sources for the supervision comments, another source supporting the unfairly targeted sentence, new wording and sources regarding the sexist implications of Iger's comment, plus I removed the quote from Whitbrook as it no longer seemed necessary with the new additions and updates. I'm happy to revert the paragraph to the previous version if others are concerned with me changing it while the discussion is ongoing, I just felt it would be helpful to go ahead and make these changes as I feel they are a clear improvements that may also help us end this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating those sources! I slightly rephrased it (split the general pushback from the 2 sources commenting on Disney's other box office failures & added attribution to those sources in the sentence; added that 4 sources used the thrown "under the bus" phrase). Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I support all of these changes and improvements to the section. Good work. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We're still running into the same issue of statements unsupported by the sources. I've read all three of the sources for Several commentators also noted instances where DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney and the media before Iger's statement. and it's still only Whitbrook making that claim. My original issue with devoting so much pushback to Iger's statement is even worse now as well. Tikaboo (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

All 3 sources report on the media coverage besides Iger's statement:

a) Gizmodo: "Also not ideal? The weirdly public way Disney has decided to paint director Nia DaCosta in the wake of its release. It started earlier this month, just as The Marvels was preparing to release, when a damning report from Variety about the struggles the MCU was facing—in both terms of waning critical and commercial response and an uncertain future slate of films and TV shows—included a bizarre aside that, while discussing the uphill battle the movie faced at the box office, saw an undisclosed source take a shot at DaCosta for concluding production on the movie remotely, as she moved to London to set up her delayed follow up project, Hedda with Tessa Thompson. [...] Peculiar airing of dirty laundry through sources talking to Hollywood media’s biggest trades is nothing new or unique to Disney and Marvel, but the practice continued even after The Marvels came out. A few weeks later, The Hollywood Reporter published a piece salaciously framed as accusing DaCosta of having “bailed out” on a cast-and-crew screening of The Marvels, only to reveal in its own reporting that DaCosta had not only not been invited to the screening, but her absence from it was because she was celebrating her birthday on the same day. [...] These weren't allegations of a poor job on DaCosta's part as a director or any kind of professional impropriety, but scandalous framings of pretty run-of-the-mill scheduling conflicts. But now Disney is taking an even more unprecedented step into the light to frame DaCosta for The Marvels’ failings: directly from the mouth of CEO Bob Iger himself"

b) The Mary Sue: "Before the film premiered, insiders tried to make her look bad for exiting the film early due to delays and prior commitments; then, she wasn't invited to the crew screening of the film and had The Hollywood Reporter falsely claiming she 'bailed' on her crew for missing it"

c) Vanity Fair: "a narrative has been floated suggesting that filmmaker Nia DaCosta, who is the first Black woman to helm an MCU movie, abandoned The Marvels since its November 10 opening. In the Variety story 'Crisis at Marvel,' it was reported that the film required 'four weeks of reshoots' in order to unravel a tangled storyline, and that 'eyebrows were raised again' when DaCosta began working on another project, Hedda starring Tessa Thompson, while still in postproduction on this one. [...] Later in November, The Hollywood Reporter ran a story with a headline that read, 'Why Marvels Director Nia DaCosta Bailed on the Cast-and-Crew Screening' scheduled for November 8, which coincided with her 34th birthday. A rep for DaCosta clarified that she had not, in fact, been invited to the screening and learned only of its existence when alerted by some crew members".

You also mentioned concerns about the paragraph not being well sourced but now think it has too many sources? The section went from 6 sources to 10 sources and I don't think incorporating those sources overly increased the length of the paragraph. The entire paragraph is currently 222 words with 160 on Iger's narrative and the response to that narrative which is a slight increase from the original 167 words with 128 words on Iger's narrative; so a 32 word increase on the response to Iger's narrative. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is claiming that "Several commentators" allege that Disney has unfairly targeted the director, but only Whitbrook is making that claim. Mary Sue and Vanity Fair are not making that claim.

We have Iger saying insufficient day-to-day supervision by Disney executives during production was partially to blame for the film's failure. So that's 16 words from Iger, and 126 words pushing back against it. Bit excessive, no? Tikaboo (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In this paragraph, there's one sentence summarizing the corporate narrative (ie. Iger's statement which is a primary source; 34 words) followed by 4 sentences where outlets respond to what extent they agree or disagree with the corporate narrative (in this case, secondary sources don't agree with the primary source's narrative). This is not excessive at all and as I explained above, analysis by secondary sources is the standard procedure in reception sections. We don't take a primary source's (ie. corporate narrative) explanation of a failure as the absolute truth especially when there are media outlets saying "actually, here's why we don't think the corporate narrative is correct". Agree with adamstom97 that you should WP:DROPTHESTICK and avoid veering into WP:BLUDGEONING responses. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to add here, whether the amount of commentary included is "excessive" or not is based on the amount of commentary that exists in reliable sources, not the number of words attributed to the different parties here. It is called WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is correct for there to be more discussion of the responses than the original statement because Iger only gave a short statement but many reliable sources responded with much more to say. Our paragraph accurately represents that, in my opinon. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We still have the issue of "Several commentators" when it's just Whitbrook. As for 34 words, it's only 16 words about the oversight, and 126 words pushing back against it. That seems entirely undue weight to me unless this was truly a massive controversy. As far as I can tell this wasn't a massive controversy just because there's a few articles. You can go through this page and make it 100x larger if you include commentary all the reliable sources have made. We've decided not to do that because it would be excessive.

While not forgetting that we are still incorrectly stating that "Several commentators" allege that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past when only Whitbrook is making that claim, we may as well go into the detail on other parts as well.

Multiple commentators took issue with this statement, questioning how more executive oversight than Marvel is already known for could be an improvement. Iger wasn't suggesting the film should've had more than the usual oversight, he was saying there wasn't the usual oversight. So again we've just reworded the non-sequitur into another non-sequitur.

both noted that Iger did not suggest Disney's other 2023 box office failures required additional supervision well again, Iger is not saying that additional supervision above normal was required, it was that the usual supervision was missing.

When deciding what to include in this article we should aim for high quality (the "high quality" bar I'm suggesting is just that the commentary isn't responding to a strawman) and due weight, currently we're failing on both.

I also don't appreciate this dropthestick and bludgeoning responses. This has only gone on this long because you guys keep refusing to remove unsourced statements from the article and when I point it out to you you just put your fingers in your ears and claim it is sourced even though you can't show where. Given it only takes a minute to read the articles to check and these responses to me must've taken much more time, I can only guess that you guys have in fact read the articles, discovered they were indeed unsourced, and still lied to me that they were while attacking me as disruptive. Tikaboo (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have your own personal interpretation of this situation and are choosing to ignore simple facts and reason as you continue to make the same arguments against multiple well-reasoned and experienced editors. We have gone ahead and addressed some of your concerns while improving the paragraph, but our previous statements still stand. There is no consensus for your ridiculous position and you need to go away, unless you come up with a new argument that is supported by reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

During this whole convo (until earlier today) the oversight and multiple commentators claims have been unsourced and every time I say that the response I get is they are sourced while refusing to say where, and calling me disruptive and whatever else. Now we finally have a source for the oversight thing (still not for the multiple commentators one) and it's just low quality, responding to a strawman of what Iger said. And the undue weight issue is even worse. Tikaboo (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying things are unsourced when they are literally sourced to multiple reliable sources. You can keep telling yourself that they are unsourced but that doesn't make it true, and trying to gaslight us into believing you isn't working. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Please point to where in the Mary Sue and Vanity Fair articles they are saying that Disney has unfairly targeted the director in the past? All they have in their articles is "insiders" or whoever else making comments about the director. Only Whitbrook is saying Disney. For some reason the recent edits have added "Disney and the media" (which still isn't correct), and we shouldn't have "and the media" anyway, this is about Iger's comment. As for the oversight thing, until now that was unsourced. So yes, for both these things they have been unsourced while others here keep claiming they are while calling me disruptive for pointing out they're not. Tikaboo (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been dropping in from time to time watching this discussion progress, and initially, it did seem like a misunderstanding on Tikaboo's part. But at this stage, I'm beginning to see where they're coming from. Here's the deal. Whitbrook summarizes what he believes were the series of events preceding Iger's comment:

1. In a leak to Variety, a source "close to the production" (misquoted by Whitbrook, see below) claims that DaCosta bailed on the film before it was finished.
2. Media outlets picked up on it, of course, which eventually led to DaCosta's response during the press tour. She says the film's date was pushed back four times, and after the third time, she had no choice but to work remote due to prior commitments. Marvel was aware and "figured out the best process" for her to finish the film remotely.
3. Then the so-called hit piece from THR followed, which appeared to be nothing more than a clickbait headline, because it included an explanation from her reps.

Did all of this happen? Yes, and it was regurgitated by multiple sources to some extent. But to Tikaboo's point, the claim that "several commentators" believe that DaCosta was "unfairly targeted" by "Disney and the media" has issues. First, it may or may not be true that this undisclosed Variety source represents Disney. That appears to be the sole opinion of Whitbrook. If anyone else has drawn that conclusion, it does not appear to be supported in the other cited sources. Also Whitbrook oddly misquotes Variety when writing "close to the production" source; the actual quote is "a source familiar with the production". Whether or not that's misleading and alters the meaning is irrelevant. Don't put it in quotes when paraphrasing.

The Mary Sue source isn't very strong in my opinion. It states "insiders", plural, which no other source seems to corroborate, and it is extremely opinionated in an emotional, triggered manner. Very fringe. I highly recommend replacing this one with a better source. The Vanity Fair source is quite objective, presenting the facts in a neutral way. It mentions the Variety source's criticism as well as DaCosta's denial that her "dismount" from the film was "dramatic". The same coverage is given over THR's debacle. It never paints the saga as an "unfair targeting" of DaCosta, nor does it claim that Disney or the "the media" in particular was responsible for what transpired. If you are drawing any of those conclusions from the article, then you are reading between the lines. This is a simple reporting of a timeline, nothing more, nothing less.

I wouldn't say the disputed sentence is completely unsourced, but it is in dire need of better sourcing. Also, move citations next to the portions of the claim that they support if they do not support the entire sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought put in here GoneIn60 but I think you are being a bit generous to Tikaboo, who has not expressed any of this in any clear or reasonable way and has burned a lot of good will with their behaviour.

Several commentators also noted instances where DaCosta appeared to be unfairly targeted by Disney and the media before Iger's statement. The intention of this sentence is to indicate that Iger's comments were not the first or only time that DaCosta was "thrown under the bus" by Disney or some representative of Disney in the entertainment media. It would be WP:OR if we said that ourselves based solely on the Variety and THR reports, but there is no such problem when we have multiple, independent sources drawing those conclusions and our wording is clear that we are talking about opinions ("commentators") and allegations ("appeared to be").

Regarding sources, I absolutely reject that this sentence is unsourced or that the citations have been misleadingly placed. Whitbrook's article clearly outlines his interpretation of these events and this aligns with the current wording of the sentence. The Vanity Fair article is much less explicit than Whitbrook in calling out Disney, but it does draw the same conclusions as him and is a good quality source to include as support. The Mary Sue is just as explicit as Whitbrook. I agree that it is opinionated, but we are using it for their opinion. I have also gone ahead and added a couple additional sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Does Deadline's listing of The Marvels as a "bomb" justify that classification?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Following a previous discussion on the use of "box-office bomb", editors updated the exact phrasing in the article to reflect statements made in new sources (mostly Deadline's). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

---

The earlier section seems to be closed, but with Deadline's article here: https://deadline.com/2024/05/biggest-box-office-bombs-2023-lowest-grossing-movies-1235902825/

I wonder how the conversation evolves? It's listed as the #1 among a list cataloguing the biggest box-office bombs of 2023, which should dissolve any issues with ambiguous language. Deadline is, to my understanding, considered a very reputable source for Hollywood financials. From a numeric standpoint the numbers that Deadline is postulating would position The Marvels as the biggest box-office bomb of all time according to the statistics in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs#Biggest_box-office_bombs

Any reasonable reading of this source- in conjunction with the existing sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvels#cite_note-Bomb-125 - would result in concluding that The Marvels is classified as a box-office bomb. Even more so with the readily available stats that the page itself already cites.

Feel free to delete or close this thread if this is redundant or misplaced. Skimming through the discussions honestly left me more confused on where to ask this question than I was before. Basilosaur (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason for the confusion is that many users have tried to use the film's financial performance to win culture war arguments, accusing Wikipedia of having a political agenda. There's a reason we've waited a while to confirm these numbers. I'm not opposed to adding it myself, though we should hear from other users first before adding it. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

While the new source doesn't actually use the term "box office bomb", it does say "bomb" and breaks down how much money the film lost. Consensus of the original discussion was to wait until we have better sources with a more holistic view of the film's financial performance before adding "box office bomb" to the lead, I think this new source satisfies that so I would support the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me that's confused about how Deadline's "P&L" is constructed? The "theatrical" revenue of $88m doesn't match any of the figures given for "box office" or their total. Then the revenue section includes home entertainment, TV and streaming (is this even knowable?) - so they're using a slightly unconventional definition of "bomb" - we usually hear "box office bomb", meaning a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run. They use the widely reported $270m production cost figure, which is a rounding of the more accurate $274.8m, but they don't round other figures in the table, which makes it look like they based that figure off a 5-second Google search. Then they go into detail in the expenses section with "Interest and overhead" but neglect to mention the $50m+ tax relief anywhere in the table. The source they cite is "Deadline Estimates".

I'm not getting the impression that this is a terribly reliable source on the matter. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

They clearly state that these are estimates, it is not meant to be precisely accurate. Only Disney could report that. It is enough for us to give our readers an idea of how much money the film lost, based on calculations made by a reliable source. Not all box office amounts become theatrical revenue for the studio, for instance the cinemas take a cut. The fact that home entertainment and streaming is included doesn't really have an impact on the "box office bomb" decision, if we ignore those values it just makes the film even more of a bomb during the theatrical run. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The $88 million will be the gross rental i.e. the studio's share of the box-office, which is typically half the box office. Given that the box-office was weighted towards overseas (which is typically a lower share around 40%) then $88 million looks reasonable to me. If anything that television and streaming revenue looks a tad generous to me, so I suspect the loss figure is a lower-bound estimate. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Deadline is definitely an accurate source Rov124 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on Deadline's calculations and use of the term "bomb", I support implementing the changes now that we have another reputable source backing things up with more facts and evidence. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This page definitely needs to include the loss estimate in the lead with the budget and box office earnings. As well as link to the biggest box office bomb page which is standard for pages of films on that list Holydiver82 (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That kind of information is not typically included in the lead and best reserved for the dedicated box office section where all of that information is discussed in adequate detail, rather than bloating the lead with more information than is necessary there. We would need another source to call it "the biggest box-office bomb" as you have called it, which Deadline's does not support, though linking to that list article of biggest box-office bombs shouldn't be an issue. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is fairly typical to include some variation of "is one of the biggest box office bombs [of all time]" in the lead of the article with a link to the List of biggest box-office bombs when the movie lists high there, along with a loss estimate. Here's a few examples:

• Strange World: "The film received generally positive reviews from critics but grossed only $73.6 million with a projected loss of $197 million for Disney, making it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time."
• Mortal Engines: "It is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time, grossing $83.7 million against a production budget of $100–150 million and losing the studio an estimated $175 million."
• John Carter: "It grossed $284 million at the worldwide box office, resulting in a $200 million writedown for Disney, becoming one of the biggest box office bombs in history."
• The Lone Ranger: "...making it one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, losing Disney over $160–190 million."
• Mars Needs Moms: "It grossed $39.2 million worldwide on a $150 million budget, becoming one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time, losing an estimated $100–144 million for Disney."

Admittedly, multiple others do not specifically use the words "box office bomb", but including the loss estimate is normal even for those. Auzewasright (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it is standard practice to include in the lead the film's status on the 100 box office bomb list. And comes off rather odd to not call it a bomb when it's at the number 1 biggest bomb on the list of 100 biggest bombs Holydiver82 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I also clicked though the top 10 losses and all but Turning Red, a Covid victim first and foremost, use much more leaded language in the lead in regarding the films failures. If The Flash, a comparable 2023 failed in the same genre is a "bomb", the so is this.

Will the film be as costly a loss as John Carter despite now leading the list? That´s far too early to tell but the way this article is worded rn suggests that breaking even is possible after the theatrical run and we now have 237 million reasons it won´t be. That might be more than the film cost... 2A00:1F:8701:DF01:CC3C:D04:2F16:7F77 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The marvels has always been an outlier when it comes to how poorly it did at the box office. How it is worded, where the information is, source requirements..etc ... but this latest source is making it extremely difficult to not have this article call it a bomb and link to the list showing that it is the top bomb of all time Holydiver82 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean that there is a general consensus for it to be done on all other film articles. That is why this is being discussed is to determine how best to present the information for this article. What we can say in the lead is a summary of what is already included in the box office section, something along the lines of "The film was a box-office bomb, grossing $206 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, making it the lowest-grossing film in the MCU and one of the few MCU films not to break even in its theatrical run." Per other comments in this section, the Deadline calculations are just that, estimated calculations. Those are not the exact loss figures to a tee, so I do not believe we should prop them up in the lead as definitively 100% solid given they are only well-placed estimates. Noting it was a bomb covers that it lost money. I still think we should leave it to the Box office section to adequately explain all the figures in full, as to not overload the lead with more information that most general readers may not necessarily be looking for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of your thoughts here Trail. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I likewise agree with all of Trailblazer101's proposals throughout this comment section. Basilosaur (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the emerging consensus here, I have WP:BOLDly gone ahead and updated the wording to reflect the current sources and provided a seamless flow for the information in the Box office section. Hopefully this puts any concerns to rest. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – The Deadline source is counting the production cost as $270 million, but we know from the Carolyn Reid source that Disney received a $55 million subsidy credit from the UK government, bringing the total production cost down from $274.8 million to $219.8 million. So the true loss is really closer to $187 million. For whatever reason, this was not factored into Deadline's analysis.
  As for calling it a "bomb", I would not be opposed to it at this point if framed correctly. The statement in the article should say something along the lines of "considered a box-office bomb" and be cited by at least 2-3 highly reputable sources, including this recent one from Deadline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the updated language suggested by GoneIn60 ("The film is considered a box-office bomb" instead of the current "Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb"). We should keep the Deadline numbers in the box office section but I don't think the lead needs to get bogged down by the specifics. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  This. The movie did lose a ton of money; that's indisputable. Deadline's neglect of the subsidy (which is also indisputable), however, sticks out as peculiar & hurts the credibility of what would otherwise be considered a reliable source, & as HarryHenry1 pointed out above, there's a political motive behind manipulated interpretation of the film's performance. CaptHayfever (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed there is a clearly politically motivated interpretation of the film's Absolutely terrible performance. This talk page is probably the best example of that since people are still trying to manipulate reality even in the face of this clear reliable sourced information on its performance. Will be interested to see if the truth and reality finally wins over manipulation Holydiver82 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Aren't the indisputable facts you mentioned already grounds for the classification to apply? Even with the $55 million subsidy taken into account, it would still have topped the chart of box-office bombs by over $30 million, and it would still rank among the top box-office bombs of all time as listed in Wikipedia.

  IMO, the lead-in should, as Auzewasright has pointed out, classify The Marvels as a box-office bomb. That's seems like an obvious classification at this point and would adhere to the language used for the other films evaluated by Deadline (such as The Flash and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny- #2 and #3 respectively). However, in the box-office section where the actual numeric losses are reported, it would make sense to highlight the fact that Deadline didn't factor in the subsidy to highlight how their actual calculations may have some issues. Basilosaur (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  It also didn't include the millions of extra cost for the multiple delay and reshoots. So it's the best estimate we have from reliable sources but probably missing additional costs as well as tax credits Holydiver82 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  With the addition of the Deadline source, I no longer think we need to be cagey with the wording in the Box office section, either, and think we can simplify it to just calling it a bomb upfront. I would propose: "The film was a box-office bomb, and is considered the first bomb of the MCU franchise." Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Incredible Hulk was a the first MCU box office bomb but yes this is also clearly a bomb and not an underperformance. Rationalistno13 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Incredible Hulk was not a box office bomb. See that film's article for detail on its box office performance. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  That production cost is only up to September of 2022. There was a lot post production costs past then. Kilus (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

This section “The film underperformed at the box-office, grossing $206 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $274.8 million, making it the lowest-grossing film in the MCU and one of the few MCU films not to break even in its theatrical run.” of the page is incorrect and needs to be updated for accuracy. Please see the source here for the correct information: https://deadline.com/2024/05/biggest-box-office-bombs-2023-lowest-grossing-movies-1235902825/

The most was the biggest bomb in box office history, surpassing John Carter and saying it “underperformed” is wildly immaculate. 2601:483:802:C690:2026:8A92:4B93:D60C (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The changes you wanted for that line weren't specified, and the claim that it was bigger than John Carter in terms of being the biggest bomb in film history aren't reflected in the source. That source is also already being discussed on this talk page. --Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To add on, the Box office section of the article notes that Some publications have labeled the film the first box-office bomb of the MCU franchise, with Deadline Hollywood calculating the net losses of the film to be $237 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Other 2023 films like The Flash and Indiana Jones have "the film became a box office bomb" in the header of the article, The Marvels has "the film underperformed at the box office", I think it should be changed, regardless of what it says in the Box Office section. Rov124 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed in the section right above this. These changes can't just be vetted through an edit request like this. That's a misuse of procedure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Connected Tv shows

The movie is a continuation of Wanda vision and secret invasion and not Just the Ms Marvel Tv show so please add

it is the sequel to the film Captain Marvel (2019), a continuation of the television miniseries Wanda vision 2021, Ms. Marvel (2022), Secret invasion 2023

Rationalistno13 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As the MCU is a multimedia franchise in which many characters and works connect with one another, we are not going to highlight every project that has one character appear from another one, as in the case of WandaVision. The film's connections to SI seem almost absent than what had been originally expected, hence why that is not in the lead. Ms. Marvel's connections are the only main one that ought to be highlighted in the lead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

i can sort of understand Secret invasion but WandaVision

but it is heavily connected to Wanda vision. Adult Monica's debut, her relationship with Carol, her getting powers and the Skrulls asking her to go to saber station is in Wanda vision. Monica is as much a lead in the movie as Kamala

If Ms Marvel is connected so is Wandavision Rationalistno13 (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The Marvels is effectively season 2 of Ms Marvel, that is why that show is listed in the lead along with Captain Marvel. The same thing can be said for Captain America: Brave New World effectively being season 2 of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, which is why that series is mentioned in the lead for that film. The Marvels is in no way a season 2 of WandaVision or Secret Invasion, so those are not included here. As Trailblazer pointed out, characters and plot lines are often continued in other MCU properties but are not treated as sequels or next seasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)