Talk:The Marvels

Revised Estimate for Budget

Here's hoping this will have less fighting than previous topics...

An article from Forbes by Caroline Reid (a reliable source per WP:MCUBUDGETS) recently revised the budget for the Marvels upwards to a $374 million gross and $307.4 million budget. Here is the relevant section:

The latest financial statements for Warbird are for the year-ending September 30, 2023, which is just over a month before the movie was released so they give an almost complete picture of its costs. They show that since the company was founded in 2020, it spent a total of $374 million (£307.85 million). Its net spending was reduced to $307.4 million by a $66.6 million (£54.9 million) reimbursement from the UK government and the financial statements say that its cost was "in line with the production budget."

Should the budget listed in the article be changed to fit these new numbers? The source indicates that this is the budget for the Marvels specifically, and the article List of most expensive films has already been adjusted accordingly. Auzewasright (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this has updated details through September 2023 compared to the current source which is through September 2022 so we should replace the current details with the new source. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and have edited to the page to have the updated budget estimate (with a footnote for the previous estimate that was widely reported). Auzewasright (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"One of the few MCU films not to break even"?

I understand that there is no need to add sensasionalist sentences like "the film is one of the biggest bombs of all time", unless it is heavily covered in news outlets like with John Carter (even if the film lost more money than John Carter), especially since it is still the highest-grossing film for a Black female director despite the enormous amount of money it lost. However, the wording "one of the few MCU films not to break-even in its theatrical run", which is the same used for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, seems disingenuous, as it implies a mere underperformance, and that is far, far from the case, as it is more than simply being a movie that did not break-even. The film is not in the same category as Quantumania, Eternals or Incredible Hulk. This film lost hundreds of millions of dollars, $237 million as estimated by Deadline. That cannot be brushed off or minimized by using the same wording for a film that is far from being as big of a bomb as this film was.

So either:

a) Remove wording and leave at "the film is a box office bomb" or "the film is the first box office bomb in the MCU"

b) Add the "lost 237 million" statement backed up with a source, which is added during the "Reception" section anyway. Joy040207 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it did not break-even is very relevant and should not be removed. The 237 million figure is just one estimate and should not be stated as fact. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well to be fair, it is listed as the biggest box-office bomb (3rd-biggest when adjusted for inflation) among all films, while the other disappointments in the MCU aren't even in the top 100. The OP might have a point that casually referring to their box office performance in the same manner might be a little disingenuous. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the full wording ought to be addressed for context. The lead states: "The film was a box-office bomb, grossing $206 million worldwide against a gross production budget of $374 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." I do not see that wording as being disingenuous to this film's financial failure when we note it is a bomb, the extremely high budget (which is not even the highest ever for a film) and the amount it made, as well as it being the lowest grossing MCU film. The lead is not trying to pass off this film's failure as not being as severe and the insinuation I have seen in prior discussions about this wording and the editorial stance behind it have been admittedly irritating. We would need sources verifying that the film is one of the biggest box-office bombs in order to add that, as we cannot just state that based off of Wikipedia' own box-office bomb list. The article is not implying that this film's financial failure is the same as Eternals or Quantumania, that blurb is being singled out without context. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's the discussion TB is referring to, where the primary question asked was, "Should we call this a bomb?". Everyone essentially agreed, TB boldly inserted some phrasing, and we moved on.

The one major talking point that has changed since then has to do with the production budget estimate. It has soared from $274.8m to $374m (after subsidies, the original $219.8m figure increased to $307.3m) per this source. That essentially adds an additional $87+ million to the loss column whenever a reasonable source, such as Deadline, circles back to do the analysis. That will cause Marvels to easily jump John Carter in the rankings as the biggest box-office bomb in history, at which point, it may be time to revisit this discussion. Until we have that source-backed analysis, best to let sleeping dogs lie. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Without knowing for certain how much it definitively lost, we should not prop up an estimate as an undisputed factual figure. I think there may be some credence in stating it is the first box-office bomb in the MCU in the lead as done in the BO section, but the specific details regarding its major financial failure are adequately covered in that section and should not be spun one way or another. I try mot to let our own collected lists influence what the articles and citations actually state. Yes, the budget estimates increased since the prior discussion yielded consensus for this wording, but an updated loss estimate has not been given to warrant such a major assertion in the lead without any adequate sources saying such. This is not defending the film in any way, it just comes down to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Maybe in a few years time further financial disclosures will be released, but there is no rush to labeling this as one of the biggest yet, especially when that is always subject to change should anything else have a sinilar BO performance. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You bring up another good point Trail, just because the Wiki list of box office bombs says this is the biggest does not mean that is accurate and should be repeated here. I don't believe there are reliable sources to support that. The list is a Wiki compilation of known bombs with potentially inaccurate profit loss calculations, so comparing each article to that list could be misleading. A similar thing happened with the list of highest grossing film franchises which differs from reliable sources due to some internal Wiki decisions and therefore it gets tricky to compare film franchises to that list without having reliable sources to back us up. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, each bomb in the Wiki compilation list is individually sourced, but the ranking itself is not usually sourced. Sounds like we're all in agreement. We'll need to wait for reputable sources to re-analyze The Marvels and determine it holds some kind of prominent position, not just among MCU films, but among all films historically (if that ever happens). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

These are all fair arguments, so let's call it a day and like you said, wait until actual figures come out. Joy040207 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Random paragraph breaks

@Natemup: your random, unnecessary paragraph breaks have been reverted multiple times and now you are edit warring. Please stop, revert your changes, and gain consensus for them at the talk page. "No consensus needed for grammatical edits" is not true, any edits that are challenged by other editors require consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with adamstom97 that the paragraph breaks seem random and do not appear to be "grammatical edits" as one edit summary states. For example, in the pre-production section, it doesn't make sense to split the analysis of the title from the paragraph that includes the title reveal. Also unclear why the link to "under the bus" was removed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense because the paragraph was too long and the analysis of a title is thematically different from the reveal itself. And "under the bus" is an extremely obvious idiom that needed neither quotemarks nor a link. Plus the blanket reversion (now with the "consensus" of exactly two editors) undoes a grammatical edit that wasn't a paragraph break. natemup (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If there is a genuine grammatical edit then you can make that, without putting random paragraph breaks all throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The MOS states that grammatical edits, which are minor, do not require prior consensus. Long paragraphs are unseemly and violate what should be encyclopedic style, and I added maybe three or four breaks at logical points in the article, which again do not require explanation. At least one of the other edits that you reverted—thrice, in violation of the 3RR policy—was the addition of a necessary comma. natemup (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

They do not require prior consensus, but if they are challenged then they do. You can't just get around discussions and consensus by labelling an edit as "grammatical", which is still not the case. This article does not have any overlong paragraphs, and the breaks you added were not "logical points" which is why you were reverted. Again, if you have genuine grammatical edits to make then you can do so without putting random paragraph breaks throughout the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We're discussing right here and you haven't addressed my points at all. You cited one example of what you thought was not a logical place to put a break and that's just about all you've contributed here, ignoring the rest of what I've said. natemup (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

3RR is only a violation if editors revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. I do not see the need to break up every paragraph in an article to be smaller, thus cutting off the flow of the sentences. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, since I didn't do that. This is silly. natemup (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive aggressive. MOS:VAR naturally applies for any article when someone wants to change the standard formatting of an article, so this is no exception. The official MOS:LINEBREAKS says "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea. Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read." Meanwhile, the MOS explanatory essay WP:PARAGRAPH says "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea, and all the sentences within that paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should usually be split up."

Firstly, separating the commentary about the title reveal from the reveal itself is a disservice by splitting the main ideas into two separate paragraphs. Splitting the explanatory details from DaCosta and Feige is breaking up two shared ideas. The filming section is not large enough or difficult to navigate. Lastly, splitting off Iger's comments from the rest of the paragraph commentary on the box office is siloing off those details. These paragraphs are not unwieldly to the point where the material presented is difficult to navigate or understand, and they keep core ideas bundled together so our readers may access them more directly. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I only looked at this one section that was split into two paragraphs, and I agree with Natemup that it was a proper move. The transition to speaking about the delay that began in October 2021 warrants a paragraph break to me. But...there are bigger fish to fry and plenty of other things to work on. This isn't worth our time and attention. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)