Justice League - restarting the thread 1 1

[Bosco685]

Ahhhh. The silence. Folks were right.

[Gatsby77]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Revat hit it exactly. After the WSJ reporter came out with 'near $300M', the story became '$300M or more' without any final confirmation. Blame it on WB for allowing it to get this far. But the only sourced references are $275M or near $300M.

Not quite.

Let's try: Bosco believes a citation from a  single WSJ article from 45 days ago and a single Variety article from 35 days ago that each hinted at "near $300 million," while ignoring multiple subsequent citations that cite "$300M or more" from:

• Deadline
• Variety
• IMDB
• Wikipedia*
• Forbes

* ironically, Wikipedia cites $300 million using multiple sources including that exact same WSJ article Bosco is using to justify his "$250 million + $25 million reshoots = $275 million" estimate.

 

 

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Gatsby77 said:

Not quite.

Let's try: Bosco believes a citation from a  single WSJ article from 45 days ago and a single Variety article from 35 days ago that each hinted at "near $300 million," while ignoring multiple subsequent citations that cite "$300M or more" from:

• Deadline
• Variety
• IMDB
• Wikipedia*
• Forbes

* ironically, Wikipedia cites $300 million using multiple sources including that exact same WSJ article Bosco is using to justify his "$250 million + $25 million reshoots = $275 million" estimate.

Ummm..

They are all referencing the same WSJ article where he noted 'near $300M'. With the IMDb and wiki, these can be edited by any member. Like when you hinted I should go change the wiki listing to fit my false information.

...ummm.

[Gatsby77]

9 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Ummm..

They are all referencing the same WSJ article where he noted 'near $300M'. With the IMDb and wiki, these can be edited by any member. Like when you hinted I should go change the wiki listing to fit my false information.

...ummm.

No.

1) You're guessing that they all source the 45 day-old WSJ article rather than credible subsequent research by reporters in Hollywood and in financial pubs like Forbes that could (gosh!) account for how the narrative has changed since.

2) As far as I could tell, the last source for "$250 million" was a Variety article from Nov. 19.

vs. 25+ pieces from credible outlets (including 5 from Variety itself) since then citing at least "near $300 million" if not "more than."

 

[Chillax23]

Can I ask a simple question of why there is so much fighting over what the chart should show - i.e., $275M vs $300M for the budget?

It seems the simple answer is - if you disagree with $275M then either don't pay attention to the chart or make and update your own chart OR if you agree with the $275M then do nothing?

Anyway - you can add $15 CDN to the total as I am going to finally see this movie tomorrow

[Bosco685]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

No.

1) You're guessing that they all source the 45 day-old WSJ article rather than credible subsequent research by reporters in Hollywood and in financial pubs like Forbes that could (gosh!) account for how the narrative has changed since.

2) As far as I could tell, the last source for "$250 million" was a Variety article from Nov. 19.

vs. 25+ pieces from credible outlets (including 5 from Variety itself) since then citing at least "near $300 million" if not "more than."

Seems very important to a few of you wanting this to be a bigger failure. It's an approach. Like I've noted before, when the real number comes out (and it could be even higher than $300M-$325M), I'll post it.

Just like when Amazing Spider-Man 2's rumored budget of $300M-$325M turned out to be $255M (Deadline and others determined this), I adjusted my charts.

A few of you making this into a character attack is dirtbag debating. Like I am making money off this - and like I would change numbers for money.

[Jaydogrules]

5 minutes ago, Chillax23 said:

Can I ask a simple question of why there is so much fighting over what the chart should show - i.e., $275M vs $300M for the budget?

It seems the simple answer is - if you disagree with $275M then either don't pay attention to the chart or make and update your own chart OR if you agree with the $275M then do nothing?

Anyway - you can add $15 CDN to the total as I am going to finally see this movie tomorrow

This isn't about people simply "disagreeing". This is about someone deliberately and willfully posting incorrect information in a quasi-official capacity  in a public forum for public consumption and a large group of boardies who simply want truth in analytics.

Why question the people who are pointing out that an individual is doing that, rather than the individual who is doing that?

-J.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, Chillax23 said:

Can I ask a simple question of why there is so much fighting over what the chart should show - i.e., $275M vs $300M for the budget?

It seems the simple answer is - if you disagree with $275M then either don't pay attention to the chart or make and update your own chart OR if you agree with the $275M then do nothing?

Anyway - you can add $15 CDN to the total as I am going to finally see this movie tomorrow

Unfortunately, because there are a few folks that make it a point to take pleasure in these DC movies failing, or worried they will equal Marvel movies. Like having equal success will take away from the other company.

Jaydogrules got so worked up about Wonder Woman getting so much attention, he took great pleasure in any news of Spider-Man: Homecoming financially passing up the DC movie. Like Feige and team were going to box up their things and bail on an amazing run of superhero movies.

[revat]

Isn't there a reasonable chance people who think its 'near $300M' and around $275M are talking about the same thing, just one is slightly more optimistic and one is slightly more pessimistic, possibly based on their personality and/or view of the movie?  None of us (I think) are journalists, we're not held to some idealistic standard of super integrity.  I see that the WSJ said 'near $300M'.  I trust them.  I'm just not sure that 'near $300M' CAN'T also mean $275M  (which was almost certainly not an exact figure anyways. 

So one person means 'around $275M' and another says 'near $300M', but reporters with likely real sources.  Some of it depends on how the question was asked and the context.

Reporter 1:  Hey so was the movie budget near $300M?

Source: Yes

 

Reporter 2:  So how much was the budget?

Source: Mmm.....$250M + $25M reshoots?  both are estimates.

 

I honestly THINK the movie went over $300M in budget.  BUT I haven't seen enough sourced evidence to blast someone for thinking $275M is a reasonable number to use. 

When I see the article saying "MORE than $300M", all I see is a lot of articles MISQUOTING the WSJ.  Have we seen any other ones quoting another actual source? (even if unnamed?)

[Jaydogrules]

35 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Unfortunately, because there are a few folks that make it a point to take pleasure in these DC movies failing, or worried they will equal Marvel movies. Like having equal success will take away from the other company.

Jaydogrules got so worked up about Wonder Woman getting so much attention, he took great pleasure in any news of Spider-Man: Homecoming financially passing up the DC movie. Like Feige and team were going to box up their things and bail on an amazing run of superhero movies.

This is just a ridiculous assumption.  Anybody who can see my sig line can see that I have well over $100k in DC/JL-related characters, and if nothing else, have a financial vested interest in all of these movies succeeding.  What I would really like is for WB to stop making movies that suck.  And if they do suck, and bomb financially because they suck, let's not put our finger on the scale in an attempt to mitigate what happened.  Let's let it all hang out there and have an honest and real conversation about it.  Trying to cover up this poop stain on the CGC boards isn't going to make the smell go away.

-J.

And yes, I am a Spidey super fan, something else that should be evident from my sig line, so it should surprise no one that I celebrate Homecoming being the biggest hero movie of the year.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, revat said:

When I see the article saying "MORE than $300M", all I see is a lot of articles MISQUOTING the WSJ.  Have we seen any other ones quoting another actual source? (even if unnamed?)

Unfortunately, someone that may feel like their mission is to bash DC movies they dislike, any statement or financial hint to the contrary becomes a personal attack.

Look at when paperheart tried to jump in and pitch I lied about financials on here concerning Amazing Spider-Man 2. Yet what he misread was the person I was debating the topic with was saying Man of Steel vs Amazing Spider-Man 2 with all-in costs proved Man of Steel was a garbage movie because WB/DC had blown so much on marketing budget (the old fallback whenever trying to show DC movies fail - but then we don't account for that in Marvel movies). So when I added it all in to show production and marketing budget between the two films (and Man of Steel was publicly recognized for $160M in product placement revenue to counter any marketing budget), it was clear the person was wrong.

So paperheart comes into this thread stating I've been known to lie before on financials. Like this is a 'thing'. But guess what? In the same thread he calls me out about, paperheart quotes the same combined numbers on Page 1

Amazing Spider-Man 2 passes Man of Steel at Box Office

On 5/26/2014 at 2:06 PM, paperheart said:

 

$425MM to produce and distribute and it won't touch $750mm WW with barely $200mm domestic = financial dud. also a critical disaster. stock of ASM3 tanking, stock of Sinister Six collapsed. the likelihood Marc Webb is attached to #3 is remote. congratulations, indeed.

 

On 5/26/2014 at 2:08 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

 

3 x budget vs. 1.6 x budget. Plus MOS had that $160-$170 MM in advertising revenue it picked up from Carl's Jr., Sears, IHOP and other companies.

 

But for me, I always want to see these big movies succeed rather than get into a company vs. company contest. The better they all do, the more attention on the overall hobby.

 

Go figure!

Why would someone try and make up a story I am known to lie about financials when they stated the very same combined number? And I clearly point out in my post the difference is MoS had a massive product revenue number to counter the marketing budget?

To discredit someone just to be nasty. Yet there he is, posting the same ASM2 number. Silly!

[Broke as a Joke]

A turd of a movie is a turd of a movie.  The Last Jedi was a big pile of , unfortunately it looks to do big numbers.  Justice League was not only a bad movie but a failure at the box office.  Nothing wrong with pointing that out with official numbers.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Broke as a Joke said:

A turd of a movie is a turd of a movie.  The Last Jedi was a big pile of , unfortunately it looks to do big numbers.  Justice League was not only a bad movie but a failure at the box office.  Nothing wrong with pointing that out with official numbers.

Good point.

Point me to a credible source that has the official numbers? You know. Because all these sites have pointed back to an official statement from someone, right?

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Good point.

Point me to a credible source that has the official numbers? You know. Because all these sites have pointed back to an official statement from someone, right?

There are no "official sources" that say what you want them to say.

There are also no "official sources" saying the budget was "$275".

So since nobody really "knows" anything, refrain from making up your own numbers and just posting "whatever you feel like" and leave the charts to the bean counters at WB for this particular movie.

Problem solved.

-J.

[Bosco685]

By the way, this post goes towards what my real philosophy is here. Not a company vs. company silly competition. But wanting to see all these comic book movies succeed rather than fail.

Quote

Amazing Spider-Man 2 passes Man of Steel at Box Office

On 5/26/2014 at 2:08 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

 

3 x budget vs. 1.6 x budget. Plus MOS had that $160-$170 MM in advertising revenue it picked up from Carl's Jr., Sears, IHOP and other companies.

 

But for me, I always want to see these big movies succeed rather than get into a company vs. company contest. The better they all do, the more attention on the overall hobby.

 

Go figure!

Even then, I called that out though the person starting the thread was of the small-minded mindset 'My Marvel must win: it's all I have!' Better to just enjoy these movies, versus assuming we need to beat each other up over which of our beloved companies are better.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bosco685

[Chillax23]

54 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

This isn't about people simply "disagreeing". This is about someone deliberately and willfully posting incorrect information in a quasi-official capacity  in a public forum for public consumption and a large group of boardies who simply want truth in analytics.

Why question the people who are pointing out that an individual is doing that, rather than the individual who is doing that?

-J.

For the record:

(1) I also want analytics to be correct at all times

(2) I am not questioning the individuals pointing out it should be $300M or the individuals saying it should be $275M - I just think neither side is going to give and really neither side can "win" this argument until a final number is provided - everything right now is an estimate - therefore both numbers are unreliable (So really everyone is arguing over one being slightly less unreliable)

(3) At the end of the day if one wants to rely on this data or these tables then one should check the numbers throughout and the related calculations - I would never rely on some random calculations if I actually needed to use the data for something important (I mean no disrespect into the effort put into making these charts nor do I know if they are accurate or not).  And if you don't need to use it for something important then either way (300 vs 275) we are talking a negligible difference in a multiplier calculation that in the grand scheme means nothing - ALTHOUGH, I do agree it should be correct when presented.

(4) Lets all just get along and hope for MOS2

 

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, Chillax23 said:

(4) Lets all just get along and hope for MOS2

You had me at Item 4. You had me at Item 4.

[Chip Cataldo]

 Why not just leave the field in the chart blank? 

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, Chip Cataldo said:

 Why not just leave the field in the chart blank? 

Now THAT is a more reasonable approach than trying to pitch someone is attempting to financially fool the forum.

I post these details for the fun of it. Not like I get paid for this friggin grief. Having a few jackoffs post I am financially fooling people like they can't get to the same exact numbers is BS. Moderation should have put that to bed fast.

[revat]

9 minutes ago, Chip Cataldo said:

 Why not just leave the field in the chart blank? 

he's not publishing a phd paper or writing a Pulitzer prize winning article.  he pulled a number from an article from a reputable news company that has a 'source'.  I don't think its unreasonable to use that number for the sake of discussion of a homemade chart on an internet comic discussion forum. 

People are right to question the number until its officialized or commented on the record by a named source, but unless there's BETTER contravening (or contradictory) evidence, its seems reasonable to use for some internet discussion between comic loving strangers.  What's the alternative?  Just have no discussion of the success/failure of a movie until an audited final number is certified by Ernst and Young (or another Big 4 of your choosing)?

Edited December 21, 2017 by revat