Talk:Blockbuster (entertainment)

message: 124.186.236.172 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Block booking was in effect from the 1920s to 1948 and was not ended by the cinemas but by the supreme court.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.118.0 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Blockbuster: Origins

message: It looks to me like the only thing needed from Blockbuster motion picture is the external links; the content seems to be covered better here.  Jgm 03:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the redirect back here and moved the links and a few other bits of content from the Blockbuster motion picture article; this is the logical place for it as this entry covers the term for other media beyond film while including all the details about film.  Jgm 15:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future - when you merge a page - make sure you have an admin merge the page histories, also. Otherwise you will be in violation of the GNU copyright. Davodd 19:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to remember that; seems like a flaw in the system, to be honest.  Plus I thought all histories remain available, don't they? Jgm 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: Another term blockbuster may have been used for was in the early eras when a "family block" was sold to a minority family.  It was not limited to african-americans, but any non-white immigrant at the time.  
This is a circulated "myth" in the real-estate world.
206.248.176.154 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial reasons 

message: In the last paragraph, Rocky is called a satirical documentary. I don't think it was one the last time I checked. Also, mockumentary might be a better word than "satirical documentary", to describe Borat. Rob-R-TOR-3 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satirical documentary 

message: I have no idea how I'd source it, but it's been my understanding that "blockbuster" was first used in the movie industry to describe Jaws, and because it was one of the first movies where the line to get in went around the block.
Seeing how nothing else is sourced, should we add this possible definition? Ynot4tony (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible definition 

message: "Jaws was the first film to exceed $100,000,000 in ticket sales and for a time this was the point at which a film could be designated a blockbuster in North America.[3] However earlier films such as Gone with the Wind (1939) and The Sound of Music (1965) easily passed this threshold.[4]"
How can earlier films have passed the $100,000,000 threshold if Jaws was the first film to pass this threshold? Does this have anything to do with the difference between 'theatrical rentals' and 'domestic gross' (http://www.ldsfilm.com/misc/lds_Top5_boxoffice.html)? AstroMark (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the article, since it's obvious that it wasn't the first. Chris 42 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Profit margin and ROI aren't the same, and who did the math to with 266000% that's insanely wrong. Also Deadpool isn't a low budget movie comparable to the others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.53.137 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Blockbusters aren't defined by ROI. A film with a high ROI could be a blockbuster, but it isn't a blockbuster just because it was a great investment. I took that WP:OR out. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Profit margin and ROI

message: Certain major trades in professional sports are described as "Blockbuster trades".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.39.6 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Trades 

message: How do you know if a movie is financially successful?
I'm guessing that the box office sales have to top the budget. But if a film makes 1 million more then the budget does that mean the film is considered financially successful?
:A film can derive revenue from several different streams (box-office/DVD/TV/streaming/merchandise tec) and there can be many costs to cover (budget/marketing/distribution fee/theater cut/profit participation) so it is not simple to work out if a film has been successful or not. However, if a film goes into profit on its theatrical run (i.e. it grosses double its budget and marketing costs) then it will generally be regarded as successful; however, films can still be successful even if they don't achieve this. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do you know if a movie is financially successful? 

message: Popculturewoohoo! (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop culture 

message: Late April 8th, I  this to the article:
A subgenre of the blockbuster is the "intellectual blockbuster", that may feature plots that are puzzles, and nonlinear narratives. While the term is not exclusively applied to films, it often is, with filmmaker Majid Majidi considering Christopher Nolan the phenomenon's creator. David Fear, writing for Rolling Stone, considers Nolan's Inception an example. Novelist D. Harlan Wilson applied the term to Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. Other examples are Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity, and Logan.
Early April 9th, my edit was  by editor Betty Logan, with edit summary: "A mix of non-reliable sources and synthesis. Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." On their Talk page, I asked if none of my material was usable, to which they replied: "You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror."
At first, I was thinking, "synthesis", fair enough, I have no sources at hand that, for example, give a listing of subgenres of the blockbuster, let alone that include "intellectual blockbuster"; maybe one day there are and we can always (re)add the subgenre to the article later. But I believe it is useful for this Talk page - and/or, perhaps eventually, its archive - to include the term "intellectual blockbuster", the above material that was added and removed, and my final thoughts.
First, I object to the phrase "non-reliable sources" that is part of the reason given for the reversion. Of the 9 sources, two are official websites of persons whose occupations may give their views on (intellectual) blockbusters some credibility, namely Iranian filmmaker Majid Majidi, and novelist D. Harlan Wilson; both of whom are also notable enough to have their own articles on our wiki. The other seven sources are the Los Angeles Review of Books, the Wheeler Centre, Chicago, Inverse, Rolling Stone, Chicago Reader, and Slashfilm. To dismiss all 9 sources as "non-reliable", even when taking context into account, seems too harsh. When I see edits such as my contribution, it is clear to me that such edits' authors put effort into providing proper sources. I believe a more tactful edit summary would be preferable when reverting such edits.
Then the remark, "Intellectual blockbusters didn't start with Nolan e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia etc." When I read "creator of the “intellectual blockbuster” phenomenon" in the source, I personally did not read this as a claim by Majidi that intellectual blockbusters started with Nolan. Key being the word "phenomenon", per its common usage. But more importantly, my material states that Majidi considering Nolan the phenomenon's creator, which is a simple statement of fact. Editor Betty Logan essentially justifies their reversion by stating: "I, editor extraordinaire, disagree with Majidi." The editor also did not back up with a reliable source their claim that Stanley Kubrick has created an intellectual blockbuster, nor that Lawrence of Arabia is one. All while, apparently, acknowledging that the "intellectual blockbuster" does exist, through "e.g. Kubrick, Lawrence of Arabia".
Finally, I think the sources make it sufficiently clear that "intellectual blockbuster", these words together, have a specific meaning that goes beyond merely being blockbusters with intellectual elements. They do this through the use of (mostly double) quotes, e.g. Slashfilm's "Logan was also a perfect example of an "intellectual blockbuster."" and Rolling Stone's "Given post-Batman carte blanche, he [Nolan] proved that “intellectual blockbuster” was not a contradiction in terms." By the way, here you can see that Rolling Stone too acknowledges the phenomenon that I mentioned above. Nolan; not Kubrick or Lean or whoever.
--62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual blockbuster