Weekend Estimates: GotG 17.6m | TMNT 16.8m | If I Stay 16.4m | WGST 9.0m | Sin City 6.5m

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

The fuck is this shit?

 

Would you shut up, woman! We're talking about my leader!

 

[Jessie]

Nope, the 'I am done. I am right, ....' and so on are giving the opposite impression you seem to aim for.

 

Btw, MPs are not generally as expressive as you seem to assume.

It's only one indicator out of a lot of indicators. Out of context to e.g. a holiday calendar, general release date calendar, sometimes even weather reports, calendar for big sportive events.... and way too often even something in theory only a part of the movie describing trailer... all playing into the day-by-day numbers and the final result... and the later on earned money via other income forms like merchandising.... (if the story even allows for that)

=> never a proof for anything as a single number

 

 

Well seeing as I argued old Pixar movies were more appealing to the GA than the new batch, and gave evidence to support my argument which was simply ignored, Id say it didn't matter how I ended my statement, what I said IS correct going by all the evidence.

 

Multipliers are usually a good indicator for original animations. Its certainly more reliable than just using and overall gross so yeah, nothing wrong with my example there

 

 

Seriously?

 

Cant spot Sarcasm when you see it? Seriously?

 

Edited August 26, 2014 by jessie

[terrestrial]

Well seeing as I argued old Pixar movies were more appealing to the GA than the new batch, and gave evidence to support my argument which was simply ignored, Id say it didn't matter how I ended my statement, what I said IS correct going by all the evidence.

 

Multipliers are usually a good indicator for original animations. Its certainly more reliable than just using and overall gross so yeah, nothing wrong with my example there

 

 

 

Cant spot Sarcasm when you see it?

 

 

 

Again: MPs are not alone counting and not always a good indicator.

 

Wrong is, that you try to use them as solo indicator and think that 'proves' anything. It's only a start, an idea giver .... to look more in-depth into other details too.

Example: If a movie starts extreme high: how early did the midnights begin. Was a public holiday involved? And so on. A rather long checklist for each and everyone of the title.

Then: in which year got a movie released, was there a 'hunger' for that kind of movies via lack of earlier releases...

=> if you put one detail out of context to all other details on a list, you can prove or disproof a lot of things about the same movies, doesn't mean any impression 'gained' by that shows the reality in part or at all

 

Sarcasm:

Btw, in a lot of boards, where also a lot of different back-grounds (countries, cultures, age-groups with their varying styles of wording,...) are meeting each other it is considered not a bad idea to add e.g. (sarcasm) to a sarcastic post.

 

Doesn't mean people do not understanding your intend and still asking: seriously?

 

Hence the reason I asked => try to figure out how it also can be understood, might be a good exercise.

 

 

What's up here the last few days, that people seem feel the need to hijack threads for such displays of ... whatever

[Jessie]

Again: MPs are not alone counting and not always a good indicator.

 

Wrong is, that you try to use them as solo indicator and think that 'proves' anything. It's only a start, an idea giver .... to look more in-depth into other details too.

Example: If a movie starts extreme high: how early did the midnights begin. Was a public holiday involved? And so on. A rather long checklist for each and everyone of the title.

Then: in which year got a movie released, was there a 'hunger' for that kind of movies via lack of earlier releases...

=> if you put one detail out of context to all other details on a list, you can prove or disproof a lot of things about the same movies, doesn't mean any impression 'gained' by that shows the reality in part or at all

 

Sarcasm:

Btw, in a lot of boards, where also a lot of different back-grounds (countries, cultures, age-groups with their varying styles of wording,...) are meeting each other it is considered not a bad idea to add e.g. (sarcasm) to a sarcastic post.

 

Doesn't mean people do not understanding your intend and still asking: seriously?

 

Hence the reason I asked => try to figure out how it also can be understood, might be a good exercise.

 

 

What's up here the last few days, that people seem feel the need to hijack threads for such displays of ... whatever

 

UURRRGGHHHHHH You are right, Multipliers aren't a sole indicator, I haven't argued that they are, ive just said they are a 'Better' indicator than just an overall gross. If you looked back you'd see my post was in response to someone stating Pixar films like Brave are more loved than others such as The Croods simply because they earned more money. Do I really have to spell this out for you? Is it really THAT hard for you to understand? Jesus fucking Christ

 

BTW this is a weekend 'estimates' thread. Actuals are now out with a new thread so what does it matter what we talk about?? is it going to ruin your day? I doubt it.

Edited August 26, 2014 by jessie

[miketheavenger]

A mod should lock this thread now so that it doesn't get bumped all the time.

[terrestrial]

UURRRGGHHHHHH You are right, Multipliers aren't a sole indicator, I haven't argued that they are, ive just said they are a 'Better' indicator than just an overall gross. If you looked back you'd see my post was in response to someone stating Pixar films like Brave are more loved than others such as The Croods simply because they earned more money. Do I really have to spell this out for you? Is it really THAT hard for you to understand? Jesus fucking Christ

 

BTW this is a weekend 'estimates' thread. Actuals are now out with a new thread so what does it matter what we talk about?? is it going to ruin your day? I doubt it.

 

Nope, I did understand. Don't think you reached your goal.

 

 

 

And? Still not a reason to hijack a thread, there are other places for that.

 

Only to give you a hint: there are people who even read after 2 weeks such threads, to see what they have missed. Some do it within days.... I can prove it with like dates and so on.

 

Some often enough rather very interesting details do not get repeated in the 'actuals' thread, see Rth's per cinema / region posts or other comparisons brought up o show some details about the ~ actual summer or year or... BO number's details.

[Jessie]

Nope, I did understand. Don't think you reached your goal.

 

 

 

And? Still not a reason to hijack a thread, there are other places for that.

 

Only to give you a hint: there are people who even read after 2 weeks such threads, to see what they have missed. Some do it within days.... I can prove it with like dates and so on.

 

Some often enough rather very interesting details do not get repeated in the 'actuals' thread, see Rth's per cinema / region posts or other comparisons brought up o show some details about the ~ actual summer or year or... BO number's details.

 

What Goal? Im not trying to reach a goal. Again, all ive said is old Pixar is more loved by the masses than new Pixar, whether you agree or not is your own decision. Don't agree, I don't care, im still right

 

And its a box office thread, im sure it isn't ruining anybody's lives that our posts don't match the thread title. Im sure you'll get over it .

[baumer]

Guys, I think it's interesting what you are discussing and for the most part, it has stayed fairly respectful, but it's best to take it to the Classic Conversation Thread....these are the exact kind of derailments we're trying to get rid of.