Jump to content

terrestrial

Wednesday 4 Jan SW R1 4.237 | Sing 3.61 | Pass. 1.747 | LLL 1.437 | Moana 1.39 | WhyHim? 1.377 | Ass.Creed .966 | Fences .948 | FB .505

By terrestrial, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts



Chaz Box Office Gold

Chaz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hatebox said:

I'd be more impressed if Disney actually created its own mega-franchises rather than buying existing ones. It's like 'congratulations, you had enough money to purchase wildly popular intellectual property and make it slightly more popular.'

 

 

How did Disney get the money to buy these franchises? They've created more classics than any other studio, tbh.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
terrestrial Global Phenomenon

terrestrial

Posted
  • Author
Posted
37 minutes ago, ttr said:

Easier said than done. It is win-win. Without Disney MCU would not be as popular, same goes with SW (in my opinion).

Agree:

I think especially the MCU... has to do a lot on the people involved, Disney did let especially Feige do, what other studios might have done less. In a way they had a bit of (growing in case of the MCU maybe) faith into their purchases, I am not sure that can be said about every other studios at that time.

WB especially buying Marvel would have been a bit strange IMHO.

Beside, is isnt as if the other studios beside WB didn't have rights to characters or character groups (and partly still have), but to me it looks like Disney saw that potential marvel started to show and made a lot out of it advertising... wise.

Star Wars I didn't read as much up about (I am aware about Kennedy..., but a lot less details), so I have no opinion about it based on data, but to me it looks like SW R1 shows they give less restrictions... than a lot had assumed / formulated here and elsewhere.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




terrestrial Global Phenomenon

terrestrial

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Yeah but what have they done for us lately?

 

Imagine you work in a way where more project means more money (e.g. architekt)

Imagigine you buy land to build on it (privatly) and are in the midthst of building you really big house - in parts yourself.

Now imagine your (hypothetically?) wife tells you: Darling I am pregnant, we will get quadruplets. And I am expectioning from you to be a really involved dad.

 

Can you imagine, that for a time the amount of new houses might suffer for a time? A house is not build in a day (let alone to wait for land survey details, like how sound is the ground...)

 

Quadruplets: old dinosaurs brought in with the buy, new dynamics from company area to company area... twice (Lukas and Marvel) And ILM as an extra part, they do too a lot of work.

Problems with ESPN, abc not reaching GA in the way they'd prefer, taking over ww the distribution for themselves (and not everywhere on the same quality level) and...

 

Plus I guess they had to get over the bomb shocks named Carter and Tomorrowland and.... trying out films like e.g. Bridge of Spies (haven't seen it, was it good?)

 

I guess a lot of reorganising.... done and still needed can slow down output for a time, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


WrathOfHan Cinematic Universe

WrathOfHan

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

 

Zero stars doesn't mean there's nothing competent about a film. Zero stars means it was overall to me a worthless movie and one of the worst movies I've seen. There wasn't anything above mediocrity in the craft of the film. The only notable thing was good acting and I would say almost every movie I give zero stars has good acting. The worst movies are almost always things like The Danish Girl that have one remarkable performance but are as films completely devoid of any enjoyment of any kind. 

 

I hated everything about Moonlight from the slow pacing and pointless plot to the pandering to social justice warriors. It truly was the worst of the worst when it comes to liberal Hollywood agenda films. Great, it's ok to be a gay black drug dealer - glad I had Moonlight to let me know that. It's ok to be gay in any situation! We get it. There was no character development because we are watching a dude in the ghetto with drug dealer and drug user influences grow up to also become... a drug dealer. Wow shocker! There's a place where people can go watch dudes jerk each other off without watching Moonlight and if I wanted to see that, I would go search for it. I, however, have no desire to see anyone guy or girl jerking each other off in a feature film. Just not my cup of tea! That's a perfect recipe for zero stars on my scale. 

 

Im glad you enjoyed it. I hated it with a passion and don't have to agree with you. It was the worst movie I saw all year. 

What happens when gay characters get introduced in Star Wars? Are you going to boycott the series?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arlborn Global Phenomenon

Arlborn

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, YSLDC said:

THR-biz-bo-pie-chart.jpg

 

1 hour ago, YSLDC said:


Just 2016 releases. Without 2015 releases that grossed money in 2016 and no re-releases or limited release.

Disney: 1.78 billion dollars. X4 Every dollar invested
Warner Bros.: 1.29 billion dollars. X4 Every dollar invested
Fox: 1.2 billion dollars. X3.75 Every dollar invested
Paramount: 916 million dollars. X1.8 Every dollar invested
Sony: 860 million dollars. X2.4 Every dollar invested
Universal: 835 million dollars. X3.9 Every dollar invested

 

It's worth pointing out that for all the bad press they get sometimes WB actually had an amazing year, it's just that Disney really overshadowed everything.

 

 

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


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WrathOfHan said:

What happens when gay characters get introduced in Star Wars? Are you going to boycott the series?

 

Its his opinion and hes entitled to it. No one has to agree with him, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


SteveJaros Box Office Gold

SteveJaros

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Arlborn said:

 

 

It's worth pointing out that for all the bad press they get sometimes WB actually had an amazing year, it's just that Disney really overshadowed everything.

 

 

 

Yes, WB had their best year since 2010, it really was a good year. Sony, OTOH, was below $1B DOM for the second straight year. Before 2015, they hadn't been below $1B DOM since 2005. Tough times for them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The Panda Global Phenomenon

The Panda

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

 

Zero stars doesn't mean there's nothing competent about a film. Zero stars means it was overall to me a worthless movie and one of the worst movies I've seen. There wasn't anything above mediocrity in the craft of the film. The only notable thing was good acting and I would say almost every movie I give zero stars has good acting. The worst movies are almost always things like The Danish Girl that have one remarkable performance but are as films completely devoid of any enjoyment of any kind. 

 

I hated everything about Moonlight from the slow pacing and pointless plot to the pandering to social justice warriors. It truly was the worst of the worst when it comes to liberal Hollywood agenda films. Great, it's ok to be a gay black drug dealer - glad I had Moonlight to let me know that. It's ok to be gay in any situation! We get it. There was no character development because we are watching a dude in the ghetto with drug dealer and drug user influences grow up to also become... a drug dealer. Wow shocker! There's a place where people can go watch dudes jerk each other off without watching Moonlight and if I wanted to see that, I would go search for it. I, however, have no desire to see anyone guy or girl jerking each other off in a feature film. Just not my cup of tea! That's a perfect recipe for zero stars on my scale. 

 

Im glad you enjoyed it. I hated it with a passion and don't have to agree with you. It was the worst movie I saw all year. 

 

It's nice to know the themes and power from Moonlight flew right over your basic head.

 

It's also funny when people talk about 'liberal hollywood' like it's one entity.  When in reality, every film has a different cast and crew that determine the themes and tone of a movie.

Edited by La La Panda
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

Some movies don't resonate with people. You don't have to like a film just because it's about poverty or gay people or black people are Asians or women's rights or any other kind of hot topics. Some movies are just boring to some people. There's nothing wrong with that.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites


SteveJaros Box Office Gold

SteveJaros

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hatebox said:

I'd be more impressed if Disney actually created its own mega-franchises rather than buying existing ones. It's like 'congratulations, you had enough money to purchase wildly popular intellectual property and make it slightly more popular.'

 

 

 

Why single the Mouse out here? Sure, Disney bought Marvel and Star Wars properties, but Warner's bought DC comics, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. 

 

Maybe Paramount should get credit for the  Transformers series, because that was a toy line that was past its commercial prime when they movietized it?

 

Universal developed the Jurassic Park franchise from a popular book.

 

I guess Dreamworks did develop Shrek from scratch.  

 

Then again, Disney did develop the Toy Story and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises so I'm not sure Disney is more guilty of "buying" big movie franchises than anyone else.  And they certainly aren't the only one with enough money to do so. Warner's, Universal, and Sony are right up there too. 

Edited by SteveJaros
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Valonqar Global Phenomenon

Valonqar

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, baumer said:

Some movies don't resonate with people. You don't have to like a film just because it's about poverty or gay people or black people are Asians or women's rights or any other kind of hot topics. Some movies are just boring to some people. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

This. It's popular in some circles to shame those who don't care for so-called progressive movies, but there's really nothing unnatural about that. Different folks have different interests. I couldn't finish trailers for several of those movies so you won't see me check them out in the cinema ever, likely not even on Netflix. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


baumer Cinematic Universe

baumer

Posted
Posted

U remember when i posted that SELMA was a bore and i.lost intetest in it at anout the 5 minute mark.

 

I got the obligatory angry hatred replies from some of the posters here. It's like as long as the movie is about a hot-button topic in this case black rights and Martin Luther King and so on and so on iyou are a pariah if you don't like these movies. But some of them are just boring.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Go to topic listing

  • 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.

  I accept