Jump to content

Plain Old Tele

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

Recommended Posts



15 minutes ago, Haley Ross said:

 

I made it abundantly clear why. They don't have the right players regardless of their efforts or lack thereof.

 

According to you. That's your opinion. Others disagree wholly or in part -- and their opinion is just as valuable (or worthless) as yours. I might agree with you more than you suspect, but still, while I might disagree with heavily-pro DC fans, it just comes down to opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 hours ago, Haley Ross said:

 

Exactly what I consider the opinions of those who consider Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad good, even great movies. Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean it can't be questioned, that it's beyond reproach. Opinions can be wrong and nobody owes your point of view or mine any respect simply because it is ours. Frankly, I expect that my opinion on the DCEU around here wouldn't be respected at all because thus far I have no respect for anything the DCEU has done and don't consider their efforts or results acceptable by any means. I think there is far too much apologizing and not enough harsh criticism. I remember people for years laughing at the Transformers and the Twilight franchises for their high grossing but ridiculously poor quality movies. I bet not a single person here made any arduous defense of those franchises. I know I didn't. That was due to two things, because I didn't care about those franchises and because I agreed with them. 

 

 

I would be okay with just halfway decent but even that seems to be too great of a hurdle for them. I'm sure they want to do well but they're going about it all the wrong ways and rewarding them with money will not make them better. In fact, if you look at the last three years, the only thing they've accomplished is make money and make Man of Steel look like a far better movie than it was.  All the behind the scene nonsense about the editing and the reshoots. I'm still beside myself that they delayed Batman v Superman for almost a damn year and that garbage is what they released into the theaters. People get the Ultimate cut and say it was so much better, then what the fuck did I go to the movies and spend my money for? If I knew their best work was going to be on the goddamn blu-ray, I would have never gone to the theaters and they knew that so they basically double dipped.

 

I almost laughed when Arlorn posted that Yoda meme and then nearly responded with "ya think?" Yes, I am furious. I don't like being jerked around by anyone, not even a movie. Suicide Squad was the last straw especially when that petition to shut down came out. I really wondered what the hell did they expect? It was a bad movie. Neverminding the critics on RT, even the audience percentage for both Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman was lower than the worst received of the movies from Marvel Studios. They're not just stumbling, they're falling flat on their face and blaming the sidewalk for tripping rather that their own two left feet. There's zero accountability and the fact that even some fans have become comfortable with that irritates me to no end. You're all hopeful that the next movie and the movie after that will be better. I'm not so convinced. With Wonder Woman, WB got a model. With Captain Marvel, Marvel Studios got an actress. To me, that's the state of things between the two studios right there. If that makes me an MCU stan, then so be it. Quality product and a handsome profit for the studio to make more movies, who would have thought? This is the same studio that had the Dark Knight trilogy for god sakes and they made boatloads of money. They didn't just have standards, they set them. Surely somebody there must be thinking, "didn't we used to have higher standards than just making money?"

 

 

@Baumer loves Oogieloves

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

I agree with your overall sentiment but not this: TFA had remarkably good legs for such a huge opener. In terms of Friday openers, I think it beats everyone but AVATAR (for, say, legs on OWs over $50m).

 

TFA had a standard mid December multiplier.  Anything over 4,25X would have been remarkable IMO... Semantics I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 minutes ago, langer said:

 

TFA had a standard mid December multiplier.  Anything over 4,25X would have been remarkable IMO... Semantics I guess. 

 

A standard multiplier off a movie that opened nearly 3 times larger than the previous biggest opener for DEC. It's multiplier looks not as good because the front end is massively larger than anything the release date has seen. TFA made more after it's opening weekend than Titanic made in it's entire run.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

A standard multiplier off a movie that opened nearly 3 times larger than the previous biggest opener for DEC. It's multiplier looks not as good because the front end is massively larger than anything the release date has seen. TFA made more after it's opening weekend than Titanic made in it's entire run.

 

Exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, langer said:

 

Exactly. 

 

It was never going to get a 4.25 off a 250M opening weekend. My point is it's a great multiplier for it's opening. to nearly push 3.8x off a 250M opening is great.

Edited by RandomJC
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

It was never going to get a 4.25 off a 250M opening weekend. My point is it's a great multiplier for it's opening. to nearly push 3.8x off a 250M opening is great.

 

For December, it's standard though.  A bad multiplier for  mid-December is 3 - 3,25X. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



With the model towards heavy front loaded films one simply can't use the multiplier as a dominant means to gauge films like we once did when the multiplier meant more.

The way audiences see movies has changed and with that the criteria to gauge their success has as well. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 minutes ago, langer said:

 

For December, it's standard though.  A bad multiplier for  mid-December is 3 - 3,25X. 

 

The standard December release isn't 250M opening. The previous record holder was 80M. 3.7 off 80M is an entirely different thing than 3.7 off 250M. You can't just ignore the starting point.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



33 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

The standard December release isn't 250M opening. The previous record holder was 80M. 3.7 off 80M is an entirely different thing than 3.7 off 250M. You can't just ignore the starting point.

 

To call something remarkable, you have to compare it to something unremarkable.   If you can't compare it to something released in the same period, then you have to compare it to something as big that was released in a different period, but you have to adjust for December holidays to make a good comparison. 

 

There are arguably only 3 movies  that opened on the scale of TFA : JW (June - 3,13X multi), Avengers (May - 3,01X multi) and AoU (May - 2,40X multi). 

 

May mid size blockbuster movies get on average 2,5X multipliers (excluding Wed/thurs release), making  AoU below average, but not bad, while Avengers is considered great.  Remarkable for May is over 3,25X (SM1, ST09).

 

June mid size blockbuster movies get on average  2,6X multi (excluding Wed/Thurs releases) for live action and 3,5X multi for animation.  This makes JW's multi a remarkable one for a live action movie, but average for all movies which we know we shouldn't compare live action to animation, so we won't say JW's multi was average. 

 

December mid size blockbuster movies get on average (excluding Avatar and Wednesday releases) 3,7X multi and 3,5X multi if we exclude also Narnia.  This makes TFA's multi an above average multiplier, but not a remarkable one. 

 

What was remarkable about TFA was the OW, its legs were standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





3 minutes ago, langer said:

 

To call something remarkable, you have to compare it to something unremarkable.   If you can't compare it to something released in the same period, then you have to compare it to something as big that was released in a different period, but you have to adjust for December holidays to make a good comparison. 

 

There are arguably only 3 movies  that opened on the scale of TFA : JW (June - 3,13X multi), Avengers (May - 3,01X multi) and AoU (May - 2,40X multi). 

 

May mid size blockbuster movies get on average 2,5X multipliers (excluding Wed/thurs release), making  AoU below average, but not bad, while Avengers is considered great.  Remarkable for May is over 3,25X (SM1, ST09).

 

June mid size blockbuster movies get on average  2,6X multi (excluding Wed/Thurs releases) for live action and 3,5X multi for animation.  This makes JW's multi a remarkable one for a live action movie, but average for all movies which we know we shouldn't compare live action to animation, so we won't say JW's multi was average. 

 

December mid size blockbuster movies get on average (excluding Avatar and Wednesday releases) 3,7X multi and 3,5X multi if we exclude also Narnia.  This makes TFA's multi an above average multiplier, but not a remarkable one. 

 

What was remarkable about TFA was the OW, its legs were standard. 

 

What years are you pulling your data for? I understand what you're saying, but I also think we're starting to split hairs. After TFA's OW, I think most were figuring a 3x multi. The fact it ended up closer to 4x than 3x+ is pretty impressive to me. 

 

JW's legs were stronger-than-expected too, but I'm not sure what that has to do with TFA

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 minutes ago, langer said:

 

To call something remarkable, you have to compare it to something unremarkable.   If you can't compare it to something released in the same period, then you have to compare it to something as big that was released in a different period, but you have to adjust for December holidays to make a good comparison. 

 

There are arguably only 3 movies  that opened on the scale of TFA : JW (June - 3,13X multi), Avengers (May - 3,01X multi) and AoU (May - 2,40X multi). 

 

May mid size blockbuster movies get on average 2,5X multipliers (excluding Wed/thurs release), making  AoU below average, but not bad, while Avengers is considered great.  Remarkable for May is over 3,25X (SM1, ST09).

 

June mid size blockbuster movies get on average  2,6X multi (excluding Wed/Thurs releases) for live action and 3,5X multi for animation.  This makes JW's multi a remarkable one for a live action movie, but average for all movies which we know we shouldn't compare live action to animation, so we won't say JW's multi was average. 

 

December mid size blockbuster movies get on average (excluding Avatar and Wednesday releases) 3,7X multi and 3,5X multi if we exclude also Narnia.  This makes TFA's multi an above average multiplier, but not a remarkable one. 

 

What was remarkable about TFA was the OW, its legs were standard. 

 

But you can't compare TFA to other December openers because of the openening. The multi looks unremarkable if you ignore the OW, and you can't just ignore that it made 3 times the Hobbit opening weekend. If you take the entire run of JW and pin it to TFA's opening, that would be less that TFA's actual total. 

Edited by RandomJC
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

What years are you pulling your data for? I understand what you're saying, but I also think we're starting to split hairs. After TFA's OW, I think most were figuring a 3x multi. The fact it ended up closer to 4x than 3x+ is pretty impressive to me. 

 

JW's legs were stronger-than-expected too, but I'm not sure what that has to do with TFA

 

Yeah I'm splitting hair, I'm saying TFA's multi is above average, but not remarkable.  Semantics.

 

I'm using the  last 10 years basically for data.  

I am Legend did 3,3X

TH1 did 3,6X

TH2 did 3,5X

 

A 3X multi in December is pretty bad - Ocean's 12 (3,23X), Golden Compass (2,8X) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2,6X) kinda run.  If most people were expecting that, they only had to look at the data too see they were lowballing it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





11 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

But you can't compare TFA to other December openers because of the openening. The multi looks unremarkable if you ignore the OW, and you can't just ignore that it made 3 times the Hobbit opening weekend. If you take the entire run of JW and pin it to TFA's opening, that would be less that TFA's actual total. 

 

All right, if you can't compare to other December openings, what comparison do YOU use to state that TFA's multi is remarkable?  Keeping in mind I just showed you that on average, December movies have a 3,5X multi while May/June movies have a 2,55X multi.  On this basis, shouldn't TFA have a 4X to 4,1X multi to at least match Avengers and JW

  • Like 1
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.