Jump to content

Plain Old Tele

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

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

TFA is up there.  Its weird how those fanboys always leave out the fact that TFA beat Avatar by almost 200m domestic and when you bring that up they go straight to "but muh ovahsees!!!" and then conveniently leave out that fact that Avatar benefited greatly from an incredibly shitty dollar back in 09.

Oh yeah, we can't forget about that weak dollar. Everything was so stacked against TFA, it even had to open against Boonie Bears 3.

 

jSByppK.jpg

 

UiEWTHi.png

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Barnack said:

It took a long time 

Green Lantern (2011) (project stated in 97)

Man of Steel (2013) (development started in 2008)

Batman V Superman (2016), even got an extra year push bacl.

 

Not sure how much fast tracked or an high volume was the issue here, far from a Iron Man 1 hyper rushed  make dialogue between shooting days situation.

 

There were rumors of a very rushed Suicide Squad writing (quite special that Will Smith would have accepted that) and Justice League still going on would be an other one, but for those before....

 

 

 

Ayer was reportedly given 6 weeks to write the SS script

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693

 

Production on JL happened even though BvS was a mess and half the execs wanted him gone because it was scheduled to begin filming in 2 weeks and it would have cost a fortune to delay it.  So they held their nose and said they'd keep a tighter leash on him.  Then Silverman couldn't be bothered to read any of Snyders notes.  Then they were unhappy with it enough to bring in Whedon but not enough to push back the release date because they all wanted to make sure they were still employed when the movie came out so they could get their bonuses before the ATT merger

https://www.thewrap.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-batman-v-superman-wonder-woman/

 

Getting in bed with Snyder all started from a rush to get a  Superman movie out before they were sued and potentially lost the rights

http://www.vulture.com/2010/10/fox_offers_wolverine_2_to_aronofsky.html

 

Quote

 

Even as Aronofsky's Wolverine 2 talks coalesce at Fox, Warner Bros. is still offering blandishments to get back into business. We're told by knowledgeable insiders the reason Warner Bros. picked Snyder for Man of Steel is that the script by David Goyer was rushed, is still a bit of a mess, and that Warner Bros. needs someone who won't spend months or even years trying to get it just right (i.e., Aronofsky), because time is the one thing they don't have: The studio must have a new Superman movie in production by 2011 or they'll be subject to potential lawsuits by the heirs of the superhero's creators.

 

We're told that Snyder was not really Warner's first choice to direct Superman, but that a director needed to be hired imminently. Privately, even Snyder has confided to agency sources that the current Superman script needs work, but clearly Warner Bros. believes he can get it done faster than Aronofsky.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rush people talk about is going from MoS to BvS where you in BvS you have to introduce and establish a new Batman, introduce Wonder Woman, find cameos for Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg. The magic of The Avengers wasn't just 6 heroes coming together as a team for the first time, it was 4 separate franchises coming together in one big crossover. I feel people wanted Justice League to have that same magic too but WB or Snyder decided to do the opposite way which is fine but it retroactively makes JL a sequel only and not a big crossover film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think Pixar can be seen as a franchise, and oh boy isn't Incredibles 2 killing it right now?

 

Whatever loses Solo caused Disney, I2 earned it doubled back.

Edited by vc2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

TFA is up there.  Its weird how those fanboys always leave out the fact that TFA beat Avatar by almost 200m domestic and when you bring that up they go straight to "but muh ovahsees!!!" and then conveniently leave out that fact that Avatar benefited greatly from an incredibly shitty dollar back in 09.

If we go down this road, the word Titanic comes up and conversation simply stops.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



44 minutes ago, Darth Lehnsherr said:

I think the rush people talk about is going from MoS to BvS where you in BvS you have to introduce and establish a new Batman, introduce Wonder Woman, find cameos for Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg. The magic of The Avengers wasn't just 6 heroes coming together as a team for the first time, it was 4 separate franchises coming together in one big crossover. I feel people wanted Justice League to have that same magic too but WB or Snyder decided to do the opposite way which is fine but it retroactively makes JL a sequel only and not a big crossover film.

Warners got greedy for Avengers level profits ,and tried to rush to the JL film.It proved to be a huge mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

I think Pixar can be seen as a franchise, and oh boy isn't Incredibles 2 killing it right now?

 

Whatever loses Solo caused Disney, I2 earned it doubled back.

If Pixar is a franchise, then the term franchise is meaningless.

Of course I I2 will cover the losses from Solo, but ,still over 100 Million dollars in potential profit from I2 will have to be diverted to cover the red ink from Solo. Any studio hates doing that.

Edited by dudalb
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I2 may cover the red ink from Solo, but it's not covering the brand damage SW has suffered. Star Wars, like the MCU, is worth a lot more than the profit or loss of a single movie. Solo may have only lost a couple hundred million, but that couple hundred million represents billions in damages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pure Spirit said:

That video is great.

Rich: "They could just make a good movie."

Mike: "I'm afraid that's not an option."

 

Meanwhile at WB

XthG354.png

That's not what Toby Emmerich said, this is ridiculous click bait.

 

This is why Donald Trump got elected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

That's not what Toby Emmerich said, this is ridiculous click bait.

 

This is why Donald Trump got elected.

97% of american mass media (the 3% is Fox news) were anti-Trump.

100% of mass media outside of the USA were anti-Trump.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

97% of american mass media (the 3% is Fox news) were anti-Trump.

100% of mass media outside of the USA were anti-Trump.

 

You should change to mainstream news vs mass media, because Internet click-bait is quite massive.

 

Has for your percentage, the coverage was not that much different (nothing like in a Russia election is):

 

Figure-1-general-election.png

 

 

Considering Trump got the most coverage ever, in absolute it's amount of neutral or positive coverage was still the highest, specially versus is opponent in the primaries, he plummeted them in positive coverage (and in negative).

 

Anti-Trump but really pro-money, and talking about Trump was money (and the candidate the most talked about on TV since TV is popular always won the presidential election, some thought Trump would be the first exception but no...).

 

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites





5 hours ago, Barnack said:

You should change to mainstream news vs mass media, because Internet click-bait is quite massive.

 

Has for your percentage, the coverage was not that much different (nothing like in a Russia election is):

 

Figure-1-general-election.png

 

 

Considering Trump got the most coverage ever, in absolute it's amount of neutral or positive coverage was still the highest, specially versus is opponent in the primaries, he plummeted them in positive coverage (and in negative).

 

Anti-Trump but really pro-money, and talking about Trump was money (and the candidate the most talked about on TV since TV is popular always won the presidential election, some thought Trump would be the first exception but no...).

 

 

Where do you get this from?

 

Although I do agree that in this pan-media era, the anti-you coverage is often much better than none-of-you-at-all coverage. People are getting so much (fake or real) information from all sorts of media and it's really hard for anyone to leave a strong impression. CNN was slamming Trump all day everyday, but in the election that somehow did more good to Trump than harm.

Edited by vc2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites



50 minutes ago, Istealnames said:

James "Exchange Rate" Cameron.

James "3D tickets 2x price" Cameron.

 

James "Iron Jim" Cameron

James "2 billies" Cameron

James "Head motherfucker in charge" Cameron

James "Box office king" Cameron

James "King of the World" Cameron

James "Destroyer of Capes" Cameron

James "the innovator" Cameron

James"the visionary" Cameron

James "is there anything he can't do?" Cameron

James "the highest grossing film of all time, not once, but twice though?" Cameron

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



9 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

TFA is up there.  Its weird how those fanboys always leave out the fact that TFA beat Avatar by almost 200m domestic and when you bring that up they go straight to "but muh ovahsees!!!" and then conveniently leave out that fact that Avatar benefited greatly from an incredibly shitty dollar back in 09.

What do you mean it's up there? It's below Titanic and Avatar, That's undisputable even with whacky "adjusted for exhange" rate conversions, which make no sense by the way.

 

Avatar with 2015 China? That's an extra $300m right there

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

TFA is up there.  Its weird how those fanboys always leave out the fact that TFA beat Avatar by almost 200m domestic and when you bring that up they go straight to "but muh ovahsees!!!" and then conveniently leave out that fact that Avatar benefited greatly from an incredibly shitty dollar back in 09.

TFA is not up there at all. Nothing comes close to avatar and titanic worldwide ticket sales. TFA was just bigger in 1 or two markets but worldwide is clearly the important figure. 

Also why would you want to compare the two? It's far more impressive that an original movie made 2.78b And even more impressive when arguably the most hyped movie in history reigniting the most luxurious franchise of all time couldn't come close with near perfect reviews and fantastic WOM 

Nothing in the last 25 years comes close to avatar and titanic, only a self centred American would think TFA is up there

 

And expanding markets more than makes up for the exchange rates 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 hours ago, Jessie said:

TFA is not up there at all. Nothing comes close to avatar and titanic worldwide ticket sales. TFA was just bigger in 1 or two markets but worldwide is clearly the important figure. 

Also why would you want to compare the two? It's far more impressive that an original movie made 2.78b

Uh oh...get ready for the litany of "Avatar?? Original? But it was "Pocahontas Meets a Man Called Horse after they Danced with Wolves at Ferngully, the Last Rainforest" excuses.

:hahaha:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



39 minutes ago, StevenG said:

Uh oh...get ready for the litany of "Avatar?? Original? But it was "Pocahontas Meets a Man Called Horse after they Danced with Wolves at Ferngully, the Last Rainforest" excuses.

:hahaha:

But that's like saying inception isn't original because you know, the matrix. Or that all comic book movies follow the exact same formula. Personally I've never seen another film where a paralysed man is taken to a new world to control and Avatar which gives him the ability to walk again and fly on mysterious dragonesque creatures through a world of floating mountains.

 

Haters gon hate, I welcome the comments so I can put them in their place 😂

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

What do you mean it's up there? It's below Titanic and Avatar, That's undisputable even with whacky "adjusted for exhange" rate conversions, which make no sense by the way.

 

Avatar with 2015 China? That's an extra $300m right there

Only an extra 300m? More like 1.8b. China is 10x the market it was in 2009 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.