MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
And I own your ass completely.
Your inability to respond substantially to my objective source demolishing your idiotic delusion has been duly noted.
"Your "financial experts" (aka. your imagination) are wrong, and therefore you are."
Prove it. You can't, because everything you write comes out of your ass.
Suck on this, drooling moron:
ttps://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable
"So, do the work and go look for it like I did."
It took me all of sixty seconds to expose you as a lying sack of human excrement--obviously you were pulling everything you posted out of your behind.
The consensus rule of thumb from movie financial experts is that to start making a profit, a movie has to make back 2 to 3 times its production budget in total box office. This figure accounts for both marketing expenditures and the fact that ticket sales that are non-domestic have a lower return.
The production costs for The Last Jedi were $200 million. Right now, it's world wide gross is approaching $800 million. So it has already made a very nice profit and will continue to do so.
How does it feel making a complete fool of yourself in a public space? You probably do it so often you stopped feeling anything, is my guess.
Again, you are as much of a clueless lunatic as the DC comic book movie idiots who fight with Marvel fans claiming that Thor and Spiderman were box office failures.
You have supplied absolutely no "math" or evidence to back up your ridiculous claims, and you never, ever will.
You're just a nutcase. By your idiotic metric, almost every movie is a failure.
There is no rational producer on the planet who would be disappointed with "just" 1 billion at the box office. 1 billion is extremely rare.
"A hefty profit is not 1 billion. "
Find me an expert on film economics who has said in print that the film would not make a decent profit from 1 billion. Your troll bullshit means nothing to me.
"All of your counterpoints are laughably wrong and I think you know that. "
My counterpoints blew you out of the water, which is why you didn't address them. You can't.
"You lose because ya basic. "
Your data, as usual, is garbage. There are many reasons outside of this minor backlash why the movie was going to drop significantly. One of my favorite movie pundits was warning about this long before it actually happened, and the pipsqueak backlash was among the least significant reasons he gave.
I saw the movie again on Christmas day and the theater was just as packed, if not more so, than when I saw it on the opening weekend at the same time.
"Nevermind the scores, read the comments on different boards and you'll see the outrage. Too many people feel betrayed."
Too many idiots, many offering critiques based on misogyny and alt-right racism, are outraged. Those people don't matter.
"Over 59,000 and counting signatures on a petition to remove this film from canon to be delivered to Disney. "
Yes, there are many idiots in the world. For instance, anyone who signs an internet petition for anything.
"The critics are out of touch and disliked the original movie in 1977."
Excuse me, but I was alive then and very aware of the many rave reviews the movie got upon its original release. Time magazine gave it the headline "Best Movie of the Year," my local newspaper from a major city couldn't stop singing its praises, and it was nominated for Best Picture by several organizations, including the Oscars.
"I'm basing it on my perspective as a movie goer, everyone I've talked to, yes - comments and videos on the internet, audience score on RT, continually dropping imdb score, BO dropoff."
In other words, you base your claims on complete garbage data. Got it.
"Which is an hilarious statement since the only thing objective or scientific when it comes to gauging a movies success is box office. "
Consensus of professional critics is a better gauge of quality, so since it inconveniently goes against what you choose to believe, you dismiss it.
"in the meantime, why don't we both agree to disregard critic/audience opinion on the film since that can never be objective or scientific...because film is a subjective medium and opinions on films can only ever be subjective. "
Nope. Art is not completely subjective. It certainly has a subjective element and people can reasonably disagree about how much weight to give it, but it is not a case of "anything goes" nor a case of everyone's opinion being equally valid. Some people have better taste and perception. Period.
"And since Cinemascore gauges initial audience reaction only, I would argue that their rating system is even more flawed. They are not polling people who have had time to digest what they just saw. Just look up The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. Both have a score of A-."
This is the only valid point you made in your entire post, but you took it too far.
No, internet scores are completely and utterly bogus and only a moron takes them seriously. Even the former editor and chief of Rotten Tomatoes has said they are not a serious means of measuring true audience reaction. Anyone can vote on RT and the IMDB without ever having seen the movie, and vote multiple times. Both sites typically show audience scores and reviews before a movie has even hit theaters. Furthermore, they are self-selecting and amplify the views of motivated, vocal minorities out of proportion to their representation in society.
"Despite the critical acclaim, this is a very polarizing film. . .With TLJ, majority of critics liked it, audiences are split on. . ."
You are basing these assertions on nothing other than a loud minority of whiners on the Internet, which is hardly objective or scientific.
The movie got an "A" Cinemascore. This means that when you base your measure on ordinary people who have been verified to have seen the movie, are only allowed to "vote" once, and are not a self-selecting, the vast majority like it. Based on these objective facts, the movie is hardly polarizing.
""Very successful" based on what? They want to make at least 1.5 billion dollars...that is very successful"
In the real world, as opposed to the idiotic delusions of trolls like you, "very successful" does not mean hitting that high a bar. I'm sure they would love to make that much, but they would make a hefty profit even being shy of the 1 billion mark.
"and they also want a large audience to return for another one. At this point, it's not likely either of those are going to happen."
Your evidence free bullshit speculation has been duly noted.
"Well, now you lose all credibility, because you are butthurt that you like a terrible movie and most people don't."
In the real world, as opposed to your idiotic delusional fantasies, the film is critically acclaimed and received a very positive A Cinemascore, meaning that most people really liked the movie. No one cares that a tiny bunch of whiny losers like you didn't like it. You people literally don't matter to anyone.
"They (Lucasfilm) have already shown that they fire people both before projects, and during."
Only when the person they hired proves he isn't giving them what they wanted. With one finished and very successful movie by him, they know exactly what they are getting with Rian Johnson, and because they are smarter and wiser than the idiotic haters, they gave him the keys to the kingdom. Can't wait to see what he does next.
"Was Javier the devil . . ."
He was actually supposed to represent God. If anything, humanity is the devil in this movie.
"Despite the film making all that blockbuster cash, I think it's safe to say he won't be making the next trilogy."
I think it's safe to say that you are utterly delusional.
"I'm talking about man hours."
Take a look at the huge number of people credited for working on effects in a modern Star Wars movie and compare the list with those employed by the original trilogy. Man hours required has increased exponentially.
"And it doesn't take hours to render a frame unless you're using one 486 clone from the early nineties."
Wrong. I have heard people with professional special effects backgrounds say that in some cases a single frame would take hours to render in today's tech.
What an idiotic, reality-free thread. The current Star Wars films are raking in tons of cash and getting great reviews. There is no rational universe in which they need "saving".
"The original took months of matte shooting just to make a ship fly but now we can use cgi to make 100 ships fly in less then a day. "
You have no idea what you are talking about. CGI rendering takes a hell of a lot longer than matte shooting. Just one single frame can take literally hours of computer processing, and that's after the team of dozens of artists have worked on the image for days.
I've seen the movie twice and I have no idea what you mean by this question.
Plus, one of the themes going on in a lot of Stanislaw Lem's work was the potential that alien intelligence could be completely inscrutable to humans. Solaris might have its own reasons which our human brains could never understand.