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

[Plain Old Tele]

4 minutes ago, langer said:

 

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? 

 

You can compare -- as long as you factor in the OW and the inevitable audience bleed-off from that. Despite many, many huge tentpoles opening in the Christmas season, none ever even came close to cracking 100m. The fact that TFA did 2.5x that... and then went on to a 3.7x+ multi on top of that is remarkable. (The only two Christmas releases I think are more impressive -- and they're significantly more impressive -- are TITANIC and AVATAR).

[RandomCat]

11 minutes ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

You can compare -- as long as you factor in the OW and the inevitable audience bleed-off from that. Despite many, many huge tentpoles opening in the Christmas season, none ever even came close to cracking 100m. The fact that TFA did 2.5x that... and then went on to a 3.7x+ multi on top of that is remarkable. (The only two Christmas releases I think are more impressive -- and they're significantly more impressive -- are TITANIC and AVATAR).

 

This is what happens when your response is eaten by the Internet, Tele posts a better one. 

[Daxtreme]

langer, who do you think was left to see the movie? No one.

 

Everybody who actually goes to the cinema at some point saw it!

 

There's a limit to how many people will actually go see your movie. Everybody and their moms saw Avatar, and yet, TFA grossed more than Avatar adjusted, somehow.

 

I think that's almost the ceiling at this point. In fact, a movie may never outgross TFA adjusted from now on for all we know.

 

TFA burned off so much demand in its early weeks (a LOT more than any other movie before it), that there just wasn't enough people left who hadn't seen it, and who actually go to the movie theaters.

 

It still cruised past Avatar adjusted (which was a phenomenon, remember? Everybody was talking about it, everybody).

Edited August 30, 2016 by Daxtreme

[ChipDerby]

I told him to not go down this road.

[eddyxx]

On 8/26/2016 at 7:43 PM, iJackSparrow said:

 

I find it incredibly hillarious that people treat BKB seriously at this point. Still not sure if he's real or literally bot/kj folklore. Like an incredibly elaborated prank account that took a life of its own. Think reverse Film Critic Hulk and that's my percetion of BKB. 

Mind blown.

[langer]

1 hour ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

You can compare -- as long as you factor in the OW and the inevitable audience bleed-off from that. Despite many, many huge tentpoles opening in the Christmas season, none ever even came close to cracking 100m. The fact that TFA did 2.5x that... and then went on to a 3.7x+ multi on top of that is remarkable. (The only two Christmas releases I think are more impressive -- and they're significantly more impressive -- are TITANIC and AVATAR).

 

If you find it remarkable that TFA didn't drop like a rock after its huge OW, good for you.  I showed  that JW and Avengers didn't drop like rocks like most other May and June movies despite having huge OW.  While having longer legs is easier when you open to below 40M$, setting OW record is not a guarantee of Friday the 13th legs. 

 

Come on guys...the worst December movie has similar legs to Captain America The Winter Soldier.  Was that impressive for The Day The Earth Stood Still? 

 

248M$ OW : remarkable

937M$ DOM : remarkable

3,7X multi : good, but not remarkable

[Water Bottle]

I'd say all of TFA's run, including it's legs, are remarkable. The fact that a movie that had a $100 million OD had good legs is impressive on it's own. That the movie made $937 million is amazing. I mean, come on. When The Avengers and Jurassic World ended in the $600 million level despite having $200 million OW (I'm not sure why you included AoU in your analysis when it failed to hit $200 million OW) then TFA at $250 million should have been expected to end at around $700 million with it's almost $250 million OW. It made over $200 million more than that. You can argue about release dates and such but that's just nonsense: TFA didn't perform like a typical December release so stop holding it to the same standard as other December releases.

[Agafin]

29 minutes ago, langer said:

 

If you find it remarkable that TFA didn't drop like a rock after its huge OW, good for you.  I showed  that JW and Avengers didn't drop like rocks like most other May and June movies despite having huge OW.  While having longer legs is easier when you open to below 40M$, setting OW record is not a guarantee of Friday the 13th legs. 

 

Come on guys...the worst December movie has similar legs to Captain America The Winter Soldier.  Was that impressive for The Day The Earth Stood Still? 

 

248M$ OW : remarkable

937M$ DOM : remarkable

3,7X multi : good, but not remarkable

 

Wait, I have a question for you. What do you think would've been the final gross of Avengers/JW if they had TFA's release date?

[langer]

700M$ expected for TFA in December after a 250M$ OW...really?  2,8X multi in December....really?  Talk about nonsense...

[langer]

3 minutes ago, Agafin said:

 

Wait, I have a question for you. What do you think would've been the final gross of Avengers/JW if they had TFA's release date?

 

same gross that they had, with lower OWs for both

Edited August 30, 2016 by langer

[RandomCat]

3 minutes ago, langer said:

 

same gross that they had, with lower OWs for both

 

If the reverse was true? that if TFA would be released in May, would it get the same gross, but open 350M+?

Edited August 30, 2016 by RandomJC

[langer]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

If the reverse was true? that if TFA would be released in May, would it get the same gross, but open 350M+?

 

Probably around 300M, I believe it would have gotten the same gross. 

[Water Bottle]

11 minutes ago, langer said:

700M$ expected for TFA in December after a 250M$ OW...really?  2,8X multi in December....really?  Talk about nonsense...

 

Yeah, really. Once again, I don't treat TFA as a December release. I treat it as a unique case. It's your kind of thinking that led people to mock me when I said that TFA would break the OW in December.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, langer said:

 

Probably around 300M, I believe it would have gotten the same gross. 

 

So, it'd have gotten a 3.16 multi in May/June, which is remarkable.

[TalismanRing]

11 minutes ago, langer said:

700M$ expected for TFA in December after a 250M$ OW...really?  2,8X multi in December....really?  Talk about nonsense...

 

A $250m opener in December - talk about nonsense....

 

Bottom line, there are only so many people that want to see any movie.  Just because there's a huge rush on an opening w/e for some films doesn't mean the pool of audience expands to the same degree for the rest of it's run, especially not when it's a known franchise or sequel .

 

 

 

 

[langer]

12 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Yeah, really. Once again, I don't treat TFA as a December release. I treat it as a unique case. It's your kind of thinking that led people to mock me when I said that TFA would break the OW in December.

 

First bold part shows some Kalogical thinking.  Second part is a nice use of the strawman fallacy. 

[Agafin]

14 minutes ago, langer said:

 

same gross that they had, with lower OWs for both

 

4 minutes ago, langer said:

 

Probably around 300M, I believe it would have gotten the same gross. 

 

 

Nice way of contradicting yourself. A $300m OW in May with a $937m final gross means a better multi than Avengers or remarkable by your own words yet you said a few posts above that TFA needed 4.1 in December to be at their level. The only way that made sense is if you were expecting TFA to get a $350m in May which would be a multi of 2.7 (which is "above average" for May). Which of course is ludicrous of course. In fact, I don't even think TFA would've opened to $300m in May, that means it'd require a $90m to $100m Saturday which is probably impossible. JW, Avengers and TFA all ended up grossing about the same thing minus previews for a reason: market capacity has its limits.

 

Anyway, the point of my question was to know if you believe that OW and legs are correlated which you obviouly do since you just saud that December would deflate JW & Avengers OW but increase their legs. For the sake of the argument let's say that's true (I don't believe so btw) So let's put it this way: TFA opened $100m above their hypothetical openings had they been released in December, and we know that legs are affected by OW, yet TFA ended up with a multi of 3.8x versus their theoretical 4x, so that should make TFA's legs much more impressive than theirs. Either that or legs and OW have absolutely no correlation and as such you're saying that JW/Avengers would've had similar OW but would've grossed $850m had they been released in December (which would be absurd).

 

You really can't have it both ways.

 

 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

Look at the TFA legs thing this way: It made $688m after OW. That doesn't scream bad legs to me.

 

You essentially have to grade multis on a curve. A 2.7x multi for a movie that opened to $100m is better (IMO) than a $20m opener getting a 3x.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Jayhawk

[Napoleon]

So there's a chance SS have a better multiple than Civil War? Who would've thought SS would end up being more well-liked than that movie? Wow

[Harpospoke]

On 8/29/2016 at 3:09 PM, Water Bottle said:

 

If the boss says he wants a giant spider in the movie, it's because the boss thinks a giant spider will improve the movie.

 

Of that I am sure.   Then all those people Tele talks about who are working hard and doing the best they can have to figure out how to make a giant spider work in the movie whether it works or not.  

 

So there might just be a single person at WB who thought it was a good idea to have Harley Quinn go up against demons with a baseball bat.   The directive from above was that Harley had to be in the movie and on the team whether it made sense or not.   Nothing the people working on the movie can do about it.   They don't have the ability to just not have a character in the movie who doesn't fit the premise.

 

23 hours ago, Johnny Tran said:

My issue with some Marvel fans is that they refuse to try and understand why a lot of people like the DCEU.  I'm sure after the 12.2 number came out today more people were surprised. 41% drop?  HOW?!?  Well, because there's an audience for SS and people like it.  Get over it.

 

It's the same with any franchises like the DCU.   People wonder why so many love Twilight and Transformers movies too.   You've just got to get used that reaction.   It's like if you announce you love Hanna Montana, you have expect a:

 

 

Doesn't mean you are wrong to like Hanna Montana.

 

20 hours ago, filmlover said:

Marvel should just stop trying to set Steve up with Emily Thorne/Amanda Clark and just #MakeCap&BuckyACouple already. The plot to the most recent Captain America movie would've been much more plausible if they had.

 

I'm not seeing a connection between the plot and who a person is sleeping with.