A "Box Office Bomb"
When you hear that term, what do you think it signifies ? We're having a bit of dispute about this term - call it 'bomb', or 'box office bomb', which imo is the implication...
shareA bomb/box office bomb is defined as a movie that garnered overwhelmingly negative reception from both critics and audiences, grossing less than half its production budget.
Anything else falls under a different classification. The urban legend mindset that every movie must make 2.5 times whatever in its initial box office run is both erroneous and misinformed.
Advertising budget is a separate factor and does not play into the fiscal success of a single major motion picture. This is a myth propagated by armchair analysts floated up into the press.
"A bomb/box office bomb is defined as a movie that garnered overwhelmingly negative reception from both critics and audiences"
No, reception from critics and audiences has nothing to do with the definition of box office bomb. Any movie that loses money is a box office bomb; loss of money is the only defining factor. The Shawshank Redemption was a box office bomb for example:
The Shawshank Redemption closed in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.[80] It was considered a box-office bomb, failing to recoup its $25 million budget, not including marketing costs and the cinema exhibitors' cuts.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption#Release
Reviews were mostly favorable, but the film bombed, failing to earn even $1 million on its opening weekend and eventually eking out $16 million (about $25 million today) at the American box office during its initial release, not nearly enough—and even less so after marketing costs and exhibitors’ cuts—to recoup its $25 million budget.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/09/shawshank-redemption-anniversary-story
"grossing less than half its production budget."
There is no specific formula like that for defining a "box office bomb."
"Advertising budget is a separate factor and does not play into the fiscal success of a single major motion picture. This is a myth propagated by armchair analysts floated up into the press."
That's not true. For example:
According to MGM records, during the film's [The Wizard of Oz, 1939] initial release, it earned $2,048,000 in the U.S. and $969,000 in other countries throughout the world, for total earnings of $3,017,000. However, its high production cost, plus the costs of marketing, distribution, and other services, resulted in a loss of $1,145,000 for the studio.[3] It did not show what MGM considered a profit until a 1949 re-release earned an additional $1.5 million.
With a worldwide gross of about $3 million during its first release in 1939 and a budget of about $2.8 million (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0032138/), according to your assertion, The Wizard of Oz had a profit of about $200,000. But MGM knows better. They say they lost $1,145,000, because they know that the money they spent on marketing, distibution, and other services was money they spent on the movie, which is no different than money spent for production costs.
The OP linked to an article about box office bombs which you should read - https://filmlifestyle.com/what-is-a-box-office-bomb/. It sums up the definition perfectly with one sentence:
When a film fails to break even at the box office, it’s considered a bomb.share