# Talk:Speed 2: Cruise Control

}}

I was wondering if describing the film as a bomb is WP:NPOV violation. The film grossed $165 million in 1997, not exactly Heaven's Gate is it?  That would be something like $300 million these days, which would be a huge success for about 99.9% of all films made. $165 million offset against a $110 million budget—even after subtracting the exhibitor's fee–would still see it make its budget back. Since it isn't an obvious money-loser, I'm think we should drop the "box office bomb" bit unless we can source it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said, and I've just added 2 sources to the reception section.  I can probably find more, but that's what I came across with a quick search. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


### Revisiting bomb label
@Betty Logan trying to figure out what changed that now you believe it must be labeled a box office bomb. One source calling it a flop does not seem to meet the standards for such an exceptional claim under "MOS acclaimed" which states, "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. A more neutral description listing just the figures for earning and budget would seem to be in line with neutrality and with the guidelines for exceptional claims. would be interested in what others think about this as well Holydiver82 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that since this discussion sources were added corroborating the fact it is a bomb. I think the discussion above is a good illustration of sound editorial practice of revising one's position when further evidence comes to light. As you see, I don't cherry-pick. I removed Justice League from List of box-office bombs when it became apparent it had lost far less money than initially estimated. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
at no point do the sources call it a box office bomb. 1 of the listed sources calls it a flop in the headline of the article. is that enough for the exceptional claim, rather then a simple neutral reporting of its earning and budget? does not seem to be in line with wiki guides on loaded language in articles? at the very least would seem to need more/better sources to call it a box office bomb in the lead of the article in lieu of a NPOV Holydiver82 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Terms such as "box-office bomb", "box-office flop" and "box-office disaster" are synonymous, and are presented as such at Box-office bomb. The Time article introduces its article with "TIME takes a look at some of the biggest flops in box-office history". If being one of the biggest flops in box-office history does not constitute a bomb then nothing does. Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
if we can consider those terms all the same, and one article listing box office flops is enough to satisfy multiple high-quality sources, then that is fine with me as I would tend to agree it seems to be a box office bomb. but that does seem to not be in line with the guides wiki has set to use such language. it appears you disagree with MOS Acclaimed, maybe a chat should be started if people disagree with the guides on labeling films a bomb? or think the requirements are too narrow? Holydiver82 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
any thoughts on this article's use of the term box office bomb in the lead? @gonein60 @Trailblazer101 Holydiver82 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is not of my interest and I would raise concerns of potential WP:CANVASSING. I'm not going to toy with other editors directing me towards something I am not interested in editing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
you seem to be an expert on the use of box office bomb, specifically the guidelines around the term. i made an edit to remove bomb from the page, betty reverted it which i do not particularly agree with and it seems hard to find anyone else who edits film articles to provide a 3rd opinion. Holydiver82 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I wholly trust Betty's rationale on film articles, especially when it comes to box office as she is far more experienced on that front than myself. Rather than trying to contest and remove the statements, I would urge you to instead search for other sources that support it and work collaboratively to add them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@GoneIn60 Holydiver82 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Holydiver82, what is your motivation for joining this discussion and pinging others to it? Are you monitoring every instance of the "bomb" or "flop" label on Wikipedia and trying to challenge/expose perceived inconsistencies, because if so, that could be considered disruptive. We just had a recent discussion at Talk:Madame Web (film)#Box office flop, as well as at other articles. If there's something specific here that's different from all the other discussions, that's one thing, but let's not make things unnecessarily repetitive.By the way, it is often better to publicize the discussion properly at WT:FILM using a discussion notice such as {{Please see}}. But before doing so, it would be helpful to summarize the conflict by stating the problem and to list the source(s) in question that you want other editors to immediately see when they come here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I would never attempt to expose the inconsistencies of how wiki rules/guides are applied to articles, as that would be in itself a violation of wiki rules. it seems like when I edit a page, either to remove calling something a bomb, or to call it a bomb, it is challenged/reverted and I am always wrong in doing so and in applying the rules/guides that govern when to call a film a bomb. I am attempting to to have people who seem to be extremely knowledgeable about these things provide guidance. as per the discussion you referenced ,this article does not seem to be in line with MOS acclaimed which is why i had edited it in the first place. but that edit was reverted Holydiver82 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
OK, so what you have in this specific case is a "bomb" claim that is currently backed by a high-quality source and a lower-quality listicle. Outright removal of the claim isn't necessarily the best course of action as a first step, considering the length of time in the article and the fact that proper sourcing is likely to exist. When you spot an unsourced claim (or one that just needs stronger sourcing), editors appreciate if you give them time to provide the necessary references, and you are even encouraged to see if you can fix it yourself per WP:CHALLENGE.Now if we take a closer look at what's in the body of the article, it actually states, "Moviefone and Time have both ranked the film among the biggest box office bombs of all time..." So the article is not calling the film a bomb per se; it's merely saying that Moviefone and Time have labeled it as such. That's an important distinction. Personally, I don't think we should give so much weight to Moviefone's listicle source, so in order for this statement to remain, it should be replaced with something stronger. And if this article is going to avoid calling the film a bomb in Wikipedia's voice, then the lead should avoid doing so as well. Currently, the lead says, "The film was also a box-office bomb...", so clearly the two statements are saying different things. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Cannot verify this.  Suspect bit of trivia; not a trustworthy source, not mentioned elsewhere.   

During filming in Marigot, an obsessed fan of Bullock employed as an extra in the film attempted to kidnap her. Bullock was later assigned bodyguards for the duration of filming. 

66.31.46.165 (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Speed 2: Cruise Control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219015058/http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-worstsequels/15/ to http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/entertainment-worstsequels/15/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

John McTiernan of the Die Hard series accused the studio of assembling this film from the leftover parts of Die Hard: 

I actually prepared two sequels. One didn't happen because Fox was wrangling with Bruce over money. After we made Die Hard 3, the studio used most of the material we'd developed for the other sequel and turned it into Speed 2: Cruise Control. The ocean liner going on the beach and stuff? That's what we'd written for Die Hard.[1]

Might be worth including in the article. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)