Talk:Elemental (2023 film)

The idea of a non-binary character was used for marketing/promotion to try and gain interest, primarily during Pride Month, any development surrounding this character being non-binary is not in the final film.

If it's not part of the movie, neither the dialogue nor character development, then it shouldn't be listed as a character trait in the description of the characters as it's irrelevant to how the character is depicted in the film.

The director making remarks about the characters outside of what is shown should either be considered under the marketing for the film OR in a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:E1FD:FAAC:96B1:C532 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, who's Matt Yang King? You should take out the stuff that is unconfirmed. How do you guys know who voices Alan Ripple? Are you spies or something? Maybe "Ripple" isn't even his last name, and he's not really Wade's dad, maybe he's just his brother. Yeah, some websites stated that he is possibly Wade's brother, but I recommend YOU not to add anything, and just make it "TBA as Alan" no "Matt Yang King" or "Ripple". Unconfirmed stuff. How do you even know if "Ripple" is Wade's real last name? I know it was in his tag that reads "ELEMENT CITY INSPECTOR WADE RIPPLE. But Maybe it's fake, you never know. Also, what the heck is "Fern Grouchwood"? Where the heck did you get "Grouchwood"? Did you make that up? You put "Matt Yang King" on there like you're so sure, but maybe you're wrong. That's why you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia. Silly Simonthings18. MariaKwanta (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Man why you going off about cartoon character names the movie ain't released yet fam chill out bro once it's out they'll have all the data compiled bro they'll have their data compiled 2806:261:417:7099:2136:E2C4:5D0C:684A (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The voice actor confirmed it in replies on his IG post 176.234.229.187 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

HOW? 184.185.152.3 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many sources calls it rom-com film, so it is a rom-com film. LancedSoul (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

So we know the Performance is Poor at the Moment. We should keep an eye out what's the Latest Earnings of the Box Office later. Happiness is Simple (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here I am @Nyxaros: at the talk page. Since when do we include a source that has cherry picked tweets to summarize "social media reception". We don't. It's synthesizing unreliable sources (tweets) to come up with an overall conclusion. I wasn't the only one that contested this inclusion of yours. What is your rationale for including this? The Metacritic deletion was just collateral damage, though it could be argued that it's unnecessary. Let the reviews speak for themselves. Mike Allen 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

They are both sources reporting content in the mentioned areas. Regardless of whether or not a source should be used on the page based on tweets from general audiences and some critics, the source states "positive reviews", that's not synthesizing when we include it in this article as the source itself literally names this claim. If we act from your opinion then we shouldn't use the consensus and Metascore of RT and MC either because they also cherry pick reviews to sum up the reception and come up with an "overall conclusion". They also include websites and publications that we've labeled as "unreliable". On a side note, you kept reverting with MC source multiple times, you should've read and checked what you were reverting. ภץאคгöร 09:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Positive reviews from a select number (like what, under 10?) of random tweets. What are you not understanding? Mike Allen 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to question the source just because it used select number of tweets, you should check these random tweets, which are written by people including a Critics' Choice member and an editor of Collider. As I've stated, the other sources do "select numbers" too, and this is not the place to discuss why they do it. You have to decide if it's in line with MOS:FILMCRITICS and/or it's "quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary". Other than that, there's no problem. ภץאคгöร 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

2300 98.10.136.168 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can watch this movie in movie theaters. Seinfeld429 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Change the run time to 1 hour and 43 min or 103 minutes Indyquaza135 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done. The source states 109 minutes - BBFC.co.uk] Mike Allen 23:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have made many edits about this films box office performance. The reasons for reversion were weak. Either "box office could improve" or "too early". These are both subjective assessments. I have provided many, even too many apparently sources to back my claim of a box office bomb. No one reverting my edits has provided sources portraying the films box office as successful or just not bad. At best this film earnings were disappointing (yahoo) at worst they were a disaster (global village space). Both sources call it a flop or bomb. Why this is too early for us but not for most RS's I don't know. Can we at least keep the fact that this is the lowest grossing opening weekend for a Pixar film. A fact that most articles mention. PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 20:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

A lot of films that have had weak opening weekends have usually recovered and become successful. Saying a film is a box office bomb purely by its opening weekends even though it's still pulled in a profit by its second weekend is a good example of jumping the gun. Yes, many sources have claimed it's a flop, but most films have had weak openings before recovering. And no, this is is not a "subjective assessment" like you claim. This has been proven before. Adamtb24 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Further More, We are not gonna believe this Box-office disappointed yet. I'd say it's gonna Run for a Couple of Months before it will come to Disney+. Pete Docter says he wants us to be Patient. Happiness is Simple (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about Turning Red then? The film performed a lot worse than this one yet it is not mentioned in the lede. Why does this film get the same special treatment despite another film completely failing in comparison to this? COVID-19 doesn't apply here, it should be mentioned in the Turning Red lede as the explanation but all that there was on that article is block evasion. So tell me, how is there not an agenda to hide facts about Disney's films performing not so good? 82.66.209.179 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe because Turning Red didn't release theatrically in any major market? 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:A061:BF34:AB4B:ED74 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is currently July 4th. The film is reported to have grossed $190,598,429 globally against a production budget of $200 million. It is already seeing its theater count dwindle and is getting fewer showings in the remaining cinemas. At this point, I think it safe to at least classify it as a box office failure. 2601:248:4780:4C70:730E:8AC:AF60:8B0E (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The film is still in third place at the box office during weekend which means the film is still doing well domestically and those box office reports are known to be slow. Again, we're not changing it until the theater count really starts to drop. It's only lost a few theaters compared to The Flash. Adamtb24 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

We will need an actual box office analysis from creditable sources to describe the film as a box office failure. Not an anonymous user on Wikipedia. Thank you! Mike Allen 12:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MikeAllen I have already found a source saying that it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically.

"The animated romance has no hope of recouping its $200 million production budget domestically, but it has held well since its disastrous opening and has now pushed beyond a $100 million domestic gross."

[1]

I don't even think it will internationally either. Lightyear grossed $226 million worldwide against a $200 million budget and it lost Disney $106 million. [2] And1987 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't object to that being added into the box office section. Mike Allen 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MikeAllen Other articles have also said it's a box office bomb. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I don't see why can't include the fact and these sources like the box office section for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does. And1987 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which article? Let's take a look at your sources.

• Deadline says "Disney, Despite ‘Indy’ & ‘Elemental’ Misfires, Leading 2023 Global Box Office With $3.4B Billion", no further elaboration in their piece.
• EW says "Elemental continues to struggle to find that trademark animated magic"
• Variety says "it’ll need to remain the de facto choice for family audiences to justify its $200 million price tag and restore a little confidence in the Pixar brand."
• Variety again: "And “Elemental,” which hasn’t lived up to Pixar standards, is displaying modest staying power with $88 million in North America and $186 million worldwide. The film looks like it’ll continue to draw in family crowds throughout the summer, but it’ll struggle to justify its $200 million budget."
• IndieWire: "It’s #8 this weekend, down 67 percent and has not yet grossed $100 million."

All these articles are in the future tense. As such, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to call it a box office bomb at this point of time in Wikipedia's voice. With its current legs the film will definitely edge out to $400 million worldwide. There is no full and final sealed deal here. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right now Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is being considered a box-office bomb. There are sources providing that fact. I previously provided some about the box office disappointment for Elemental in my previous edit. [8] And1987 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Variety also said that despite the film holding well in recent weeks, it has no chance of recouping its $200 million budget domestically. [9] And1987 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Still not calling it a bomb. Exactly how many tentpole movies break even from just domestic? 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:28BA:D98B:22A8:6187 (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have another source saying that this movie's box office total won't be coming out of the clear. "“Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic." [10] And1987 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

That was a week ago when the film still hadn't opened in a few territories, plus it's once again based on the film's dismal opening weekend despite it having grown strong legs since then. I wouldn't say its valid. Adamtb24 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Adamtb24 It’s not likely to turn a profit with a $200 million budget. Look at how much money films like Rise of the Guardians and Mr. Peabody & Sherman lost due to high production and marketing costs. And1987 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's true, but still a box-office bomb and having grown strong since then, we need Attributed to multiple references about Elemental flop. Not likely a profit with $200 budget. MLJ 657 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Screen Rant estimates that the film would need to gross $400 million worldwide to be a success financially. However, depending on how much money was spent on the marketing, the film would need to make closer to $500-$600 million in order to really be considered a hit. [11] And1987 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some strange thing happen last week when some made an edited on Pixar Wiki Fandom. look at this https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Elemental. It's almost halfway to it end if the film gross $400 million but someone went to Pixar Wiki Fandom and edited it. MLJ 657 (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

TodayThe Hollywood Reporter wrote that it considers the film to be one of the big-budget misses of the summer so far. [12] And1987 (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Variety is still calling the film a “costly misfire”. [13] We could wait until later this year to see if Disney reports how much money the film might lose or in early 2024 to see if Deadline Hollywood lists it as one of the biggest box office bombs of 2023 like they did with Lightyear and Strange New World. [14] And1987 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then on the other hand you have Gizmodo saying its on its way to "a sleeper success", and /Film discussing it's passing of Encanto and its major "reversal of fortune" before becoming "highest-grossing original Hollywood film released in theaters since the pandemic began". Variety also later notes that after its disappointing start, the film "has rebounded". -2pou (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article says that it will still need to gross $500 million to break-even. [15] And1987 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Predicted to need as much as $500 million to break even, some critics are looking toward Elemental's Japanese debut on Aug. 4 as the final test of its turnaround. Predicted by who? Mike Allen 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have to admit, this film kind of surprised me with it's legs. According to Box Office Mojo's numbers, it has grossed over $425 million against a $200 million budget as of August 9th. In an interview with Variety, Pixar president Jim Morris is claiming that with their additional revenue streams, the film is now poised to post a net profit. https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/ If you are willing to take him at his word, this definitely takes the film out of Box office Bomb range. MLcausey (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Screen Rant and CBR are sister sites sharing several staff/resources. You quoted them at $400million earlier (now met with the trades acknowledging the turnaround as well with THR noting it "weathered the storm" and "won’t be a huge theatrical money loser after all"), and now the goalposts are being moved?

Getting back to what Talk pages are for, though, what exactly are we trying accomplish in this discussion? We dont need to continue to use it as a repository of every story covering the box office performance. Things have changed so much, I think we've lost sight of where its going. It seems all the coverage paints a pretty clear picture: The film opened poorly, and it appeared to be a financial disappointment; however sustained ticket sales over its theatrical run resulted in box office sales totalling $_____<fill in the blank>. This is all pretty well outlined in the THR piece just linked, aside from a final number, so multiple references can be consolidated until a final number eventually comes. -2pou (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ultimately, the film will lose money, and is unfortunately not a "sleeper hit" as the article claims. The general rule of thumb is that a film needs a little over two and a half times its production budget to start breaking even (including marketing, prints, theaters' cut of the profits, etc.), so with a production budget of $200m, Elemental would need ~$550m to start earning a profit. It's WW gross was "merely" $444m. It may be able to recoup a little more with digital & Blu-ray sales, but will still unlikely hit its break even point. Even if it miraculously managed to barely get to that number, it still wouldn't be considered a "hit" of any kind. 2601:5C1:4580:1330:51A1:58A7:F9D9:1493 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many publications and Disney and Pixar themselves have stated the film has become profitable. It's already proven it's a sleeper hit, it's been written into the article, there's nothing more that can be added to this discussion so let's end it with that. Adamtb24 (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's perfectly fine. The numbers don't support it, but it's perfectly fine. 24.131.3.70 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean, honestly, the data doesn't lie... unlike studios that would want to make themselves look good in a time of extreme strife. 24.131.3.70 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It could be noted that Flarrietta is a customer at The Fire Place. Also here is a link on the Immigration Official: https://pixarpost.com/2023/05/elemental-sneak-peek-american-idol.html 65.130.217.56 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to the website CBR, it is estimated that the film will need to gross $500 million to break-even. [16] Is this accurate and should we include it in the article? And1987 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think break-even points are of encyclopedic value. That is for trade residual performance reviews and investors to evaluate. Facts like (production) budget and box office sales and regions are for encyclopedias to report. Profit and loss values… Hollywood accounting makes things too unreliable to be of encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Unless we’re trying to comment on said accounting practices. For example Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix is still losing money, right? -2pou (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The runtime of the film is 1:41:28, 101 minutes (or 1 hour and 41 minutes, and sometimes also displayed as 1 hour and 42 minutes), rather than the previously stated 109 minutes (or 1 hour and 49 minutes). The 2023 short film titled "Carl's Date" has a duration of 7 minutes, which when combined with the main film's runtime, results in a total duration of 1 hour and 49 minutes. I'm assuming this is the reason for the 1 hour and 49 minute duration. Simonthings18 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Elemental had just reached $300M domestically and $450M worldwide." 73.132.195.186 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply