Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[DMan7]

Whoops looks like a JC fan stayed behind to get tortured with facts. 

[MCKillswitch123]

57 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

Side note. I'm completely disappointed there hasn't been a SteveJaros anti-Disney club for this year.

Well, I'm pretty sure he once said Infinity War wasn't even locked for a 200M opening, to which I replied that he had just reverse-jinxed it into record OW territory.... which ended up happening

 

I think he might've said Black Panther could've been a disappointment as well. He didn't say shit about A Wrinkle In Time before release, though, and WIT bombed hard. So that's that.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Well, I'm pretty sure he once said Infinity War wasn't even locked for a 200M opening, to which I replied that he had just reverse-jinxed it into record OW territory.... which ended up happening

 

I think he might've said Black Panther could've been a disappointment as well. He didn't say shit about A Wrinkle In Time before release, though, and WIT bombed hard. So that's that.

But I was really looking forward to a Fox over Disney club, that he'd pretend was a success if you don't include all the movies Disney made.

[MCKillswitch123]

15 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

But I was really looking forward to a Fox over Disney club, that he'd pretend was a success if you don't include all the movies Disney made.

Because he didn't actually say anything, watch Deadpool 2 blow up beyond comprehension and everything else Fox releases get to 200M DOM

[The Panda]

I’m going to make a Fox over Disney (Minus Star Wars, Marvel and Pixar) 2018 Club!

[aabattery]

5 hours ago, RRA said:

Speaking of DC, the other day yet another of my postings got deleted by the Mods in the WW thread. Here's the weird thing: I was actually defending the Wiig/Cheetah casting from some person there comparing it to the Halle Berry Catwoman movie. I get it, some guys online feel violated by that failed reboot Wiig did a couple years back but don't miss the forest for the trees. She's talented. Jesus, have some faith in Jenkins folks. 

 

So why was that posting deleted? I think it's basically I more or less said at the end that surely not all the DCEU villains will be lackluster. As in yes I've criticized the villains in those movies (this isn't exactly a minority opinion online), but you know Marvel had that problem too where consistently their adversaries would be meh, regardless of the acting talent. (I mean Phase 1 and 2, I would make the cases for the merit of Loki/Red Skull/Winter Soldier...or 3 out of what, 12 movies? Dear lord...) But in Phase 3, more often than not the villains have at least been decent? (DR STRANGE whiffed there though.) Some problems aren't necessarily static. Maybe AQUAMAN can fix that problem for them first? Maybe WW2 will? Maybe SHAZAM!? I mean who knows. 

 

I mean why can't people tolerate nuanced opinions about a studio? Yeah I'm a Marvel fan, but I'll call them out (like many online have) about their issues with soundtracks and villains and whatever else on both a fan point and in terms of cinema (Like a certain character killed off in BLACK PANTHER that I didn't like because said character could've been useful later on...and no its not who you're probably thinking about.) or that I think some of their stuff is stronger than their other work. (Or you know that for their well-heralded imagination to believe audiences around the world will love a talking raccoon or walking American flags or Space Vikings, they couldn't do that for a female-fronted movie until recent times. I mean folks, what's true is true.)

 

Yeah save for WW, I've not exactly been wowed by the DCEU. I say that while admitting I don't think the casting in alot of those movies are the problem (except maybe "Damaged" himself because screw him) but good casts can only do so much if they're not given much to work with. Didn't WW prove that? 

 

Here's the delicious irony: I've been called out in DC threads by fans of that brand in the past for being a hater. Yet times where I'm defending decisions of theirs (not always but they do happen when common sense forces me to intervene), I get the delete button. I don't get the delete button in Marvel threads when I criticize that company or output.   

 

If you have an issue with the moderation here, I recommend sending a PM to one of the admins 

 

That being said, the DC threads are more heavily moderated for a reason. We've historically had issues with them, hence the heaviness of the fist in those threads.

[RandomCat]

19 minutes ago, Critically Acclaimed Panda said:

I’m going to make a Fox over Disney (Minus Star Wars, Marvel and Pixar) 2018 Club!

IN!

[IronJimbo]

8 hours ago, dudalb said:

On  sites with decent moderators, Jimbo would have been in trouble for "Thread Hijacking" a long time ago.

Conversations in threads have a natural tendacy for topic drift, but that is different then somebody delibertly trying to force a thread into a totally different topic...

Irony is if anything these antics backfire;make people resentful of the both the fanboy and the cause his supports.

I force Avatar in this thread because it's allowed, I do it sparingly in others and mainly reply to Avatar related posts in weekend thread and such.

You have a warped perception due to this thread.

[Lothar]

14 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

If you have an issue with the moderation here, I recommend sending a PM to one of the admins 

 

That being said, the DC threads are more heavily moderated for a reason. We've historically had issues with them, hence the heaviness of the fist in those threads.

the problem is how do we know who deleted our post ? Triple AA battery 

[DeeCee]

4 minutes ago, Lothar said:

the problem is how do we know who deleted our post ? Triple AA battery 

You message an admin.  All mods can see who hid a post. 

[Lothar]

12 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

You message an admin.  All mods can see who hid a post. 

Mods after checking who hid a post

[ZeeSoh]

Was just checking BOM when I stumbled across this domestic BO statistic. 

 

MCU has grossed as much as Warner Bros, Sony and Universal’s entire 37 tracked movies in 2018 so far. And IW still is in the middle of the run!!!

 

It has also already outgrossed 6 of the top 10 studios in 2018 including Universal, Paramount and Lionsgate. 

 

And there still is potentially 500m more waiting for MCU in 2018

[TomCruiseTop]

21 hours ago, DMan7 said:

I wonder what'll happen to the mental health of JC fans in here if Avatar 2 doesn't match or surpass the original at the box office? Or even what if it barely makes 1B WW? 

Just like the meltdown liberals predicted over Trump losing... we don't have to worry about such low energy low chance outcomes. 

 

20 hours ago, Walt Disney said:

 

Only ticket price adjusted for inflation. 

Domestically only though? Not accounting for population changes and of course media changes (the invention of home video for example), it all still seems very arbitrary. 

[Walt Disney]

5 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

 

 

Domestically only though? Not accounting for population changes and of course media changes (the invention of home video for example), it all still seems very arbitrary. 

Not arbitrary at all. The idea is to have as close to an apples to apples comparison to the box office grosses as possible. The way to do that is by adjusting for ticket price inflation. There will be changes in population and changes in entertainment options from era to era. However, you can still most closely compare box office results by adjusting for inflation. If you don’t, then the newest blockbuster will win purely because of increased ticket prices.

 

It isnt a perfect system, but it is the only way to compare movies from different eras, if someone is serious about doing that. 

 

It is impossible to adust WW grosses because international markets all have different exchange rates from year to year and from country to country. When the dollar is weakest, OS grosses are strongest. The math to properly calculate the exchange rates is just too difficult, which is why no one does it. So to try to compare WW numbers from year to year is very inaccurate. Which is why I stick to domestic numbers, where we can get a good comparison of the grosses of older movies to the grosses of recent movies.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Walt Disney

[The Stingray]

Why is Avatar even a topic of discussion here? It came out 10 years ago, and the next one comes out God knows when.

[Barnack]

25 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Not arbitrary at all. The idea is to have as close to an apples to apples comparison to the box office grosses as possible. The way to do that is by adjusting for ticket price inflation. There will be changes in population and changes in entertainment options from era to era. However, you can still most closely compare box office results by adjusting for inflation. If you don’t, then the newest blockbuster will win purely because of increased ticket prices.

I disagree a little bit here (adjusting for ticket inflation is much better than doing nothing) but not necessarily the best way to do an apple to apple comparison. Many big issue with the adjust by ticket price inflation, one being if the ticket would have been cheaper they would have probably sell more of them.

 

Depending of what people tried to calculate, that would be my opinion on how to do it:

 

1) What movies made the most money, that one is easy adjust by purchasing power, using regular inflation.

 

2) How popular/successful the movie were, the best apple to apple way to go about it is to compare how much the movies did relative to the blockbuster of their era, this way take into account constant change like inflation and population growth, massive  sudden change like TV + urban sprawling of the 50s and smaller change like home video, you take pretty much everything into account using that.

 

Say you look at the top 10 of the 2 year's before the release and after removing that movie, average and std dev and you score how much they did relative to that group, also for the total annual box office. That will give you an idea of the relative size of the phenomenon.

 

That usually what people do to compare athlete in team sport of different era, for sport that statistics changed over time., how much they dominated their contemporary peers is the main variable use. And when you use that metric, it give a chance for all movies of any era a chance to the top, the market share of the first run of Gone With the Wind is really close to Star Wars/E.T./Titanic first run's.

[Walt Disney]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I disagree a little bit here (adjusting for ticket inflation is much better than doing nothing) but not necessarily the best way to do an apple to apple comparison. Many big issue with the adjust by ticket price inflation, one being if the ticket would have been cheaper they would have probably sell more of them.

 

Depending of what people tried to calculate, that would be my opinion on how to do it:

 

1) What movies made the most money, that one is easy adjust by purchasing power, using regular inflation.

 

2) How popular/successful the movie were, the best apple to apple way to go about it is to compare how much the movies did relative to the blockbuster of their era, this way take into account constant change like inflation and population growth, massive  sudden change like TV + urban sprawling of the 50s and smaller change like home video, you take pretty much everything into account using that.

 

Say you look at the top 10 of the 2 year's before the release and after removing that movie, average and std dev and you score how much they did relative to that group, also for the total annual box office. That will give you an idea of the relative size of the phenomenon.

 

That usually what people do to compare athlete in team sport of different era, for sport that statistics changed over time., how much they dominated their contemporary peers is the main variable use. And when you use that metric, it give a chance for all movies of any era a chance to the top, the market share of the first run of Gone With the Wind is really close to Star Wars/E.T./Titanic first run's.

I prefer to adjust for ticket price inflation so as to equalize the price of a ticket. Adjusting by regular inflation used to sound good in theory, but ticket prices have grown at a rate far beyond inflation. Which is why I like adjusting for ticket price inflation. 

[Valonqar]

44 minutes ago, The Stingray said:

Why is Avatar even a topic of discussion here? It came out 10 years ago, and the next one comes out God knows when.

[The Panda]

Is your franchise or director really the best?  Vote for it here!

 

 

[IronJimbo]

2 hours ago, Critically Acclaimed Panda said:

Is your franchise or director really the best?  Vote for it here!

 

 

as if this question needs to be asked