Talk:Happily N'Ever After

Animation: Films / Computer Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: German / American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Proposed merger[edit]

Just thinking, do you think it would be a good idea to add the new poster to the page? Just thinking 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think merging those two articles would be a very good idea. :) In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), I propose keeping the "Happily N'Ever After" title because there is nothing else which bears that name (as far as I know), so the "(film)" at the end is unneeded. Esn 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witches Abroad[edit]

Should Pratchett's book with a very similar premise be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.92.7 (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has some bias[edit]

Article is more than a little biased. The article seems to revel in the weak box office earnings of the film, even though it's sum of box office & DVD sales made it slightly gross profitable Lexein (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexein: I agree that there were some tonal problems with describing it a "failure" and a "letdown". These were added here and here. I've removed the phrasing since 1) they constitute improper tone, (we don't like hyperbolic "flop" and "failure" language) and 2) nobody's bothered to attribute the opinions to anybody. Normally we only consider box office revenue against production budget as the metric for a theatrical film's financial success. There are too many possible revenue streams, like broadcast rights sales, merchandising, etc. and that's all simply beyond the scope our interest. I mean, even just to evaluate DVD sales, we don't know how much was invested in the production of those DVDs. For all we know, the $16M made there was a loss. Anyhow, I hope the other issues have been resolved, if not, please feel free to make the changes yourself. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. This sort of analysis needs to be properly sourced to avoid original research. A lot of Wikipedia editors seem to think they can simply compare the budget to the gross and determine this themselves. We have an entire article dedicated to why this is not possible: Hollywood accounting. Besides that, the gross is split between distributors and studios. It is meaningless to say that a film grossed more than its budget; this may still be a net loss for the studio. It is also possible for a studio to make money on a film from other sources, such as merchandising and home video. It's difficult to keep this kind of editorializing out of Wikipedia articles, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 12 NovMember19 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. Helpful. "Hollywood accounting"- shoulda known. Seems like Box Office Mojo seems unafraid of stating gross income from many sources, but inconsistently.Lexein (talk)Lexein