Talk:Wonder Woman 1984

Cameo appearance in a photo

People have added notes to the Cast section saying characters from the first film make a cameo appearance in a photograph. This note has removed Dec 28, and similar note was previously removed Dec 26 .

I agree with this removal. As a general rule I don't think a cameo appearance in a photograph is WP:NOTABLE (in this film or any other film I can think of, not even big franchise films like Jurassic Park). I think it would take exceptional sources to somehow show it was notable, AND it would at least need to be discussed and gain consensus __before __ being added to the article.

Do other editors agree or do they think a cameo appearance in a photograph is worth mentioning in this or some other way? -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On Twitter Lucy Davis wrote "It was so good to say hi and catch up with everyone for just one day." So she was actually there and it was not entirely digital trickery, and although I think it was a lovely detail, I still don't think it is notable. But maybe others disagree? -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Special:Contributions/109.79.76.202: Photographic appearance/cameos are indeed notable. Especially given the fact that the actress was present on-set with the rest of the cast and crew. Cameo appearances are notable.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you believe the cameo appearance isn't notable. What reasoning to you have?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead does not get to assert that it is notable because he indeed says so, he needs to show notability. RustedAutoparts removed it twice already, and he had good reason to. Editors should reread WP:MOSFILM, and pay close attention to WP:FILMCAST 1. "it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors" the guidelines are already saying not every minor role or cameo is notable. Editors already need to show any cameo is notable, and for a minor minor photographic only cameo especially so. Twitter is a weak source, only slightly better than no source at all, barely enough to WP:VERIFY and not enough to show it is actually WP:NOTABLE either. -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion of facts in article prose is not WP:N. Please do not follow this policy because it is falsely applied. WP:N is the policy for inclusion of whole articles on Wikipedia vs. their deletion from the project.

The proper guideline for inclusion of facts in articles is WP:DUE. If there is demonstrable coverage by WP:RS compared to the preponderance of sources and coverage of the article, then a fact is DUE and we can include it. Notability does not attach to mere facts. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Early critical response

Is it notable that early critical response was more positive than current average critical response? This includes a Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer score that was 89% (71 reviews) and a Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus text that read:

"Great Hera! Wonder Woman 1984 is an epic dose of heart and vibrant escapism that proves there are still unexpected thrills to be found in superhero cinema."

Reliable sources of the old score and consensus text are available at People, and Comic Book Resources, among others. There's also an analysis of the score-drop/text-change by Dan Murrell, former Screen Junkies writer/creator. Related is also the film losing its "Certified Fresh" status - which, apparently, rarely happens to films. Various sources for this too, including Screen Rant, MovieWeb, and Comic Book Resources. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Same thing happened on Game of Thrones (season 8). We can include its previous tomatometer (and maybe metascore) before the release on 25 December as notes if there is a consensus. Screen Rant is not a reliable source by the way. nyxærös 13:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone entirely deleted the mention this precipitous drop from this from the Critical response section. I restored it and added another reference. The rewrite change of the Critics consensus alone was unusual, but when the score eventually dropped as low as 59% Rotten Tomatoes themselves said it "a fall like none we’d seen before". That's WP:NOTABLE. -- 109.78.193.228 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"1984 (Wonder Woman)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1984 (Wonder Woman) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 26#1984 (Wonder Woman) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Disproving "box-office bomb" claim

Black Widow (2021) came out within the same COVID-impacted period while having the having the exact same simultaneous streaming/theatre release where it grossed 380 million on a 290 million dollar budget. AKA putting the streaming release aside, this would factually be classified as a "box-office bomb", yet its Wikipedia page lists no mention of that whatsoever and even goes the complete other way by positively stating "Black Widow broke several pandemic box office records and grossed over $379 million worldwide".

In addition to the several historical facts and numbers already stated on the Revision history page, the above fact definitively proves this film being classified as a box-office bomb is objectively incoherent.

The short version: Either this movie *and* Black Widow are both "box-office bombs" or none of them are. You factually/objectively/inarguably cannot cherry-pick one and not the other. 165.120.90.71 (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

We actually need sources that call it a "flop" or "bomb" to call it that ourselves, and right now I'm not seeing much out there, nor any existing support in the article to call it such, so it is correct to remove this term from this page. Yes, I know we have a good estimate of total losses being >$100M, and the film is listed at List of biggest box-office bombs but that list there is based strictly on known budget losses, and is a far more concise title for other terminology, but we shouldn't use a film being on that list to state it was a bomb on the film's page without any sources. Masem (t) 12:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the follow-up response.

Your point regarding the film being listed on the "biggest box-office bombs" article due to the fact that this is based on known budget losses is another perfect example to prove the inconsistent cherry-picking I mentioned as I just saw Tenet was also included on that list yet Tenet's article makes zero mention of it being a "box-office bomb", and instead simply states that it was "the fifth-highest-grossing film of 2020 despite failing to break-even."

So that's now two definitive examples of complete inconsistency of this wording being used for certain films and omitted for others, and i'm sure I could click on several other films released at peak COVID time from the "list of biggest box-office bombs" article where their own article pages will have no box-office bomb references.

If someone can make an objectively logical case for why Tenet's article doesn't classify it as a "box-office bomb" yet Wonder Woman 1984 should, then do so, otherwise the wording needs to stay removed. 165.120.90.71 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I am raising the question of retitling "List of biggest box-office bombs" in light of this (on its talk page), because yes, without sourcing that explicitly says that, we shouldn't be calling any film a bomb or flop. Ww84 would be still be among the largest losses in films, no question, just that we shouldn't title that list as "box-office bombs" without the requirement for that sourcing.

And that would make COVID films more logical to include because if we're just simply going by losses between known budgets and theater box offices, those films would still be included but with the asterick to denote the streaming releases. Masem (t) 14:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I honestly think the term "boz-office bomb" has become overused and is just loaded language. It is typically only included if it satisfies the criteria outlined at MOS:ACCLAIMED. Upon closer inspection of the article, that specific term is not widely used in the sources included, although a more accurate description would be to state that the film "underperformed at the box office" due to the COVID-19 pandemic and streaming factors, which is what the sources support as reasons for its lessened gross. It does not matter what other articles state, and if there are concerns that the articles for Black Widow and Tenet do not accurately reflect what the sources there state, then those concerns should be raised at those talk pages (I will note that I have frequently edited those articles, as well, and am open to engaging in a constructive discussion at those talks should any concerns be raised there.) I have no strong opinions on what to do with the bombs list article, though I will be sure to take a look at it as it has been on my radar for a while as becoming quite excessive. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)