MovieChat Forums > ranmast > Replies
ranmast's Replies
I know you are not asking, but the real answer is:
GW, GB.
Enough said.
Does this bomb has a plot?
Brie Larson is black, really? The currently most powerful superhero of the MCU?
Yes, tell 'your friend' they/them is stupid beyond comprehension.
Exactly! She must have been one of the people who blamed him for what happened to Garret. Stupid, I know, but this world is full of stupid people.
Ouch!
Now even more than official (Disney shills) outlets have reported that the budget (more than confirmed) rose to 300 Millions. Imagine if it was already a flop with the budget at 250M, now that it is confirmed at 300M (all without marketing), wow. Way to loose money Disney.
Oh Mr. Awsome as some here call you. You are just stretching some facts in order to defend this. You seem to be using the 560 break even amount given by Deadline. But you fail to mention that most of your 'ALSO' points were already considered by Deadline when making this number the breaking point. First, they mention it in the article and second they always do their financial analysis including these variables. They don's tend to forget these things (like Disney cuts, Digital and streaming numbers). The only variable they don't use is the dolls. But Ariel and TLM was already one of the top Disney Seller way before this new movie.
Bull $hit. So, Frozen 1 and 2, Beauty and the Beast and even Alice in wonderland, movies made for girls and than appealed to girls made billions. The Frozen movies, were made for kids, mainly little girls and Frozen 2 is the highest animated movie of all time. So, no widespread appeal, still made billions.
Really, what's the difference in audience appeal between Beauty and the Best and The Little Mermaid. They have the same audience target. If anything Ariel is way more popular than Belle. Ariel was (and i say was until this year) the top 1 Disney princess seller for Disney. And I hope you don't come with the crap of Emma Watson, because as famous as she can be, she cannot carry a billion dollar movie by herself. Nope.
Still no bragging or celebration. They seem to be accepting the movie is not breaking even.
Wait, isn't there a Napoleon film or movie upcoming? If I have to guess, I would say Napoleon's role will be played by Kevin Hart, because Hollywood is really worried to represent Napoleon's real height.
Really strange that this streaming phenomenon used as a excuse for horrible Box Office performance only apply to this movie. Why it didn't affect Top Gun, Avatar 2, Super Mario Bros, Guardians of the Galaxy 3. This excuse is only valid to the movies you want or care. Avatar 2 has several months on Disney+ and it made 2 billions.
Are you talking to me? Are u talkin t me? I ask because it seems you are responding to my comment, ironically the one in which I declare exactly the same thing you are saying, that there is no way that a movie that makes 560 million at the box office (that's its top right now) can cover for 390 million of total costs. So, let me know what part of my post is incomprehensible or where did I make a mistake.
Darn! I even said:
<blockquote>when you take away the theaters' share (near half the total box office)</blockquote>
Hmmmm, I don't know, just a few months ago Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA seemed like a great and secure idea for an investment, today I would NOT take that risk and am very glad never did. People with brain know that the only sure things are Death and Taxes. Disney, as you see is not on that list.
Regarding people talking about specific figures of a division of a multi-division company is inevitable. If not we just have to ask for newspaper and media news sites to close their financial and economy sections. Unless you believe these news are made, by these media companies, just for private investors and not for the general public. Don't think that's how the economic and financial world works.
Now, if the problem with talking about specific figures of a business division (even if they don't tell the whole story) could be that squabbling about them may probably offend, hurt, trigger or bring to reality some people, then though luck for them, because no matter how these people cry, whine, threaten or fight, its not gonna happen, its not gonna stop. Sorry, but people will not stop talking about how much some product is creating losses to its parent company, as much as people will not stop talking about a sport athlete who was overpriced and is not giving the performance expected of him/her/them...
Asking this is futile and impossible to know, since Disney is a multi billion dollars company spread around the whole planet; with dozens, maybe hundreds of divisions. So, even if their movie/animation division is bleeding money as a bullet in an artery, as you generously confirmed, how the rest of their divisions are doing is a mystery and we cannot know how they cover for the losses The Little Mermaid, Lightyear, Strange Words, Antman 3, Indiana Jones 5 and others are bringing to the company... They will either get back on track or keep losing money until they can't do it anymore...
Yes, this is the general rule. But people here and in other sites will play dumb, ignore it, act delusional, call you crazy or ask for your credentials and all the federal, papal, scientific proofs this is how you determine how much a movie needs to break even.
Well, this movie cost 250 millions as production cost and 140 M of marketing cost. A total of 390 millions total cost. No one has come with a logic explanation on how this movie making 560 million (that's its top right now) can cover for 390 million of costs when you take away the theaters' share (near half the total box office). So, their next best answer is dolls and posters and streaming, a streaming that Disney is going to pay to guess who? Disney. So, at best case scenario, a box office failure.
I'm going to say Riders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time... And if I am not wrong, the only 'heroics' things Marion did in that movie were: drinking more alcohol than a fat Sherpa, passing Indy a bottle of whiskey (after drinking from it) so he can use it to hit a bad guy, and stealing a butter knife to try to scare Belloq and escape a camp full of Nazis in the middle of the desert (while very drunk). Oh! and hitting a half zombie Egyptian local with a pan (which actually is the most heroic action she did, well until she became super mama GT jungle driver in the last one.
Damn! Where is the 'like' button...
$hit these two comments are like a slap on the face of the s-hood, early period bringer...
Fruck, this thread is based, a slap on reality and funny as hell.
Wow, 'hijinks' you almost got me there (thanks for google). While I agree with most of your points, I also want to point out that we are talking about Superman, not some obscure and unknown comic book character. So, in this particular case not only comic book fans were in disagreement with the MOS approach. Many of the general public grew with Reeve's Superman, Luis & Clark and other merrier iterations of the character. It seems WB wanted to appeal the new generation of brooding/Emo teens, however, these teens weren't interested in super heroes, just until the MCU entered the scene with their goofy/serious approach, they were. That's what I believe, at least...