MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > A "Box Office Bomb"

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...

reply

Ok, what do we call movies that nobody went to see, with an average production cost, or even a low-budget ?

It seems to me that the critical aspect is that a film attracted little interest, costs aside.

reply


Well, technically -- if they make a loss on the investment -- they bombed. That applies whether they cost $2m, $20m or $200m. But, I dunno, I'd probably personally refer to a lower budget film failing to break even as a box office dud or something like that.

BOMB. The very word implies something bigger or more spectacular than no-one going to see a $2m indie flick, doesn't it?

Your $2m indie flick probably needs a smaller weapon to define it: a box office pistol, a box office slingshot, a box office pea shooter. (I'm being facetious.)


reply

i think the term probably evolved to me. in the movie "the producers" zero mostels character said he only created bombs. but with the money bets laid down now....
i guess a movie that loses money in general should be a flop compared to a bomb.

personally a bomb to me means hype, john carter and ghostbusters 2016 both had over 100 million in advertising. these movies were expecting multiple sequels, licensing revenue from merchandising, video games, culture, star careers, etc.

bombs costs execs their jobs or even entire studios destroyed nowadays.

reply

Good points. I think the reason I am bucking on the term bomb is because it has a connotation of (lack of) quality, which may or may not be the case.

Most people def. see the financial connection as intrinsic to the term, which is part of the definition.

But I like your terminology better, a flop, which might simply mean a film which no one cared to see.

reply

"Good points. I think the reason I am bucking on the term bomb is because it has a connotation of (lack of) quality, which may or may not be the case. Most people def. see the financial connection as intrinsic to the term, which is part of the definition."

That's because the term isn't just "bomb," it's "box office bomb":

box office
noun

a place in a theater where tickets are sold

Box office is also the financial success or failure of a movie or play measured by ticket sales

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/box-office

If you just said that a movie was a bomb, I suppose it could mean that not many people went to see it or not many people liked it or whatever, but a box office bomb means it bombed at the box office, which only means that not enough tickets were sold for the movie to at least break even.

"But I like your terminology better, a flop, which might simply mean a film which no one cared to see."

Box office flop means the same thing as box office bomb, and there are other terms that mean the same thing as well:
A box-office bomb, box-office flop, box-office failure, or box-office disaster is a film that is unprofitable or considered highly unsuccessful during its theatrical run.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-office_bomb

reply

When you post, I visualize a guy in a black & white striped shirt, with a whistle. For whatever reason.

reply

yeah, seems all about the money. but i get what your saying. fight club, shawshank, the thing, blade runner, etc all technically "bombed". seems an unfair assessment.
Edit: wrong on these, they just underperformed (bad website list - i searched good movies that bombed. their close, maybe after theater costs from gross might have lost money)

do we have a word for movies that suck and were box office successes?
Meet the Spartans was a 30M budget and made 85M box office.
suckered? stealing? robbed? Spartaned?

i cant imagine the feeling of JC execs when The Lorax trashed them head to head:
The Lorax - Domestic Box Office: 214.5M - March 1-October 18, 2012
John Carter - Domestic Box Office: 73M - March 9-June 28, 2012

reply

It's a movie that did exceptionally badly. Like it lost most of the money invested in it. Obviously the bar would be a little different for a little 2 million movie like Late Night With the Devil and something big budget.

I'm not sure I'd call a movie that didn't do too well but wasn't a total disaster a bomb. Something like Borderlands clearly is. A movie like Waterworld, which was disappointing but made quite a bit of it's budget back, I don't really think deserved being labeled as one.

reply

At bottom, the problem we have is categorical. There are so many gradations of possible success or failure, ranging from artistic worth, sophistication, spectacle, suspense, wit, plot, character, exposition, pacing, topicality, cinematography, budget, box office gross, re-market gross, and probably ten other aspects anyone might reasonably call to mention - with only about a single term to describe a film not meeting expectations, especially financial, which in many respects, over the long haul in terms of art, loses its relevance. In the long run, we are interested in the film, not its profitability.

So, however enthusiastic we are, or aren't, in enforcing the definition, it is inadequate to the actual demand.

reply