Funny events in anti-woke world

Recommended Videos

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,960
6,717
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm guessing you're considering Little Mermaid to have made money?
From the info we have, it's likely to have made a relatively small positive return.

Production budget of ~240m, marketing of ~140m, other costs-- if the 2x holds true-- bringing the cost to about 500m. Box office of 560m.

Disney will certainly consider that disappointing, particularly for a big-name release. But it's pretty shaky to assume it made an outright loss.

Once again, you're linking to a low-quality site with an axe to grind. Bounding into Comics is pretty notorious right-wing outrage-bait; they make various assumptions and number-stretching there to make things look worse than they are, because they don't like the film and want it to have bombed.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,319
855
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
From the info we have, it's likely to have made a relatively small positive return.

Production budget of ~240m, marketing of ~140m, other costs-- if the 2x holds true-- bringing the cost to about 500m. Box office of 560m.

Disney will certainly consider that disappointing, particularly for a big-name release. But it's pretty shaky to assume it made an outright loss.

Once again, you're linking to a low-quality site with an axe to grind. Bounding into Comics is pretty notorious right-wing outrage-bait; they make various assumptions and number-stretching there to make things look worse than they are, because they don't like the film and want it to have bombed.
News sources say it lost money. Also, 2-2.5x is an estimate and you're ignoring the 2.5x possibility.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,960
6,717
118
Country
United Kingdom
News sources say it lost money.
Well, no; so far you've provided two online culture warrior nobodies. News sources generally say we don't have the details to be sure, because many of these costs aren't published.

Also, 2-2.5x is an estimate and you're ignoring the 2.5x possibility.
Actually, my bets have been hedged: "likely", "shaky to assume" etc. You're the one making definitive statements about enormous losses and treating it as fact.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,319
855
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Well, no; so far you've provided two online culture warrior nobodies. News sources generally say we don't have the details to be sure, because many of these costs aren't published.



Actually, my bets have been hedged: "likely", "shaky to assume" etc. You're the one making definitive statements about enormous losses and treating it as fact.
IMDB is a culture warrior nobody?

Also...
That’s also using a conservative factor of 2.5x the film’s production budget. Star Trek actor and film producer Simon Pegg previously indicated that the Star Trek films needed to make 3x their production in order to be profitable.

Disney has also put on ice any new live action remakes.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,807
7,005
118
From the info we have, it's likely to have made a relatively small positive return.

Production budget of ~240m, marketing of ~140m, other costs-- if the 2x holds true-- bringing the cost to about 500m. Box office of 560m.

Disney will certainly consider that disappointing, particularly for a big-name release. But it's pretty shaky to assume it made an outright loss.
Also, movies can earn a load of money outside the box office - video (old days) / on-demand streaming (current), then selling broadcast rights, etc. There's also merchandising for some.

Many box office flops have still ended up turning a profit. Just maybe a few years after the studio was hoping.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,960
6,717
118
Country
United Kingdom
IMDB is a culture warrior nobody?
Did you cite IMDB saying The Little Mermaid definitely lost money? I'm referring to "Disney Dining" and "Bounding into Comics", which are non-sources.

Also...
That’s also using a conservative factor of 2.5x the film’s production budget. Star Trek actor and film producer Simon Pegg previously indicated that the Star Trek films needed to make 3x their production in order to be profitable.
They call that a conservative estimate. I don't see why; the only actual whole-cost example we've seen so far (in Eacaraxe's post) was closer to 2x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,319
855
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Also, movies can earn a load of money outside the box office - video (old days) / on-demand streaming (current), then selling broadcast rights, etc. There's also merchandising for some.

Many box office flops have still ended up turning a profit. Just maybe a few years after the studio was hoping.
Disney+ has lost $11 billion...

Did you cite IMDB saying The Little Mermaid definitely lost money? I'm referring to "Disney Dining" and "Bounding into Comics", which are non-sources.



They call that a conservative estimate. I don't see why; the only actual whole-cost example we've seen so far (in Eacaraxe's post) was closer to 2x.
1747920158964.png

You're using the very very conservation 2x when we have info that it could be as much as 3x. Also, Disney wouldn't halt any future live-action remakes if it was just one film losing money.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,960
6,717
118
Country
United Kingdom
Right, but follow the link-- that article isn't actually written by IGN. It's written by 'Piratesandprincesses'.

You're using the very very conservation 2x when we have info that it could be as much as 3x.
The only reason you're describing it as "very very conservation" is that a few culture warrior people online gave higher estimates when they had a particular interest in the film tanking.

Bottom line: we don't really know enough. It certainly wasn't very profitable.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,344
3,152
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Most of the movies you listed as making a profit did not make a profit. The only ones in your list that probably made decent money was Thor 4, BP2, and Guardians 3. Elemental looked like a massive flop, but it had really long legs and probably ending up making some money. That's not even half, let alone a "good" half.



You can't yell at me for using the wrong definition and then claim that by my definition (when it fits your argument), Disney movies had all these "white" people. Again, it was just the 1st result from a Google search and figured US census data wouldn't lump in latinos because on like every form I fill out, there's always a "white - non hispanic" option.

You're acting like my take is some weird fringe thing when it's not and it's fucking obvious, everyone knows it. Here's the Honest Trailer for Snow White that just dropped yesterday, this is obviously not some right-wing channel or anything. From the video, "and more virtue signaling than a Coachella land acknowledgement". Why are you gaslighting me like this isn't happening when everyone with 2 eyes that isn't heavily biased can see it? At 2:47 in the trailer you see 4 guards Snow White is talking to and it cuts from one guard that is latino, then one white, then the other 2 are black and asian; this is not how communities look today let alone in the time that a story like Snow White would be set at. You have to purposefully cast like this for that to happen. The US is really diverse for a country but that diversity is not spread evenly across the country, people tend to live with their own people, whether hundreds/thousands of years ago or today.

Latino is white as per the census graph you provided. Why aren't you putting the guard in the white section?

You aren't using the census data until it is convenient for you. You clearly are using a different definition. Here:
.
This is the same census, but using your definition of white, which just means Europeans (it includes Hispanics). They make up 58% of the US population. It changes your story when you are using a different percentage
Here's another one (Not the definition you have used)
.
This removes Latinos and Hispanics but adds Arabs, Egyptians, Turkics and other Middle Eastern and North African ethnic groups back in

(So, now we are looking at the EXTRAS and seeing if they fit demographics? I thought we were talking about lead actors? No thanks)

Edit: My mistake. You are doing the second graph, excluding Latinos from being white. If you pick this one, it does mean that Osama Bin Laden is white. Also, you should be very upset with all the white people being murdered by the IDF in Gaza right now
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,807
7,005
118
It should have been painfully hard for Disney+ to lose money if they just did the bare minimum what with the utterly massive and beloved back catalog and all.
It's quite easy for Disney+ to lose money, because it turns out that streaming is a shitty business model.

It worked when it was only Netflix and looked like a goldmine, but it turns out that when there become a bunch of corporations fighting over audience share and needing to pay out big sums to get material, they can't make their money back. I think Netflix is the only one making a profit, and even then it's perhaps small one for what we might think of as a major company. Of course, Netflix needs to make a profit, because unlike most of the others, it's not a division of a much larger firm that can readily shuffle money back and forth to subsidise losses in other areas. But that's a lot of why they're all hiking up prices and/or introducing adverts.

Disney might be losing money on Disney+, but it's making a profit overall. They can afford the odd wasteful splurge here or there, whether its underperforming TV production to drive its streaming, or underwhelming movie sequels / reboots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,960
6,717
118
Country
United Kingdom
Trump ambushed Cyril Ramaphosa in front of the press at a White House meeting recently, showing him pictures and video footage he claimed showed the 'genocide' of white farmers in South Africa. I happened to watch part of this one live and it's fucking awkward.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out the pictures and footage weren't of what he claimed. Photos were from Goma in DRC; footage Trump claimed to show a mass grave of white farmers was actually a temporary memorial for 2 murder victims.

So the usual question with Trump, then: was he intentionally lying to a foreign head of state, or is US policy being guided by clickbait?

 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,602
2,001
118
Country
The Netherlands
So the usual question with Trump, then: was he intentionally lying to a foreign head of state, or is US policy being guided by clickbait?
if I were to guess Musk intentionally lied because he never got over the end of apartheid and Donald easily swallowed all the lies of his sugar daddy. Musk lies and has an agenda while Trump is just an idiot racist
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,807
7,005
118
So the usual question with Trump, then: was he intentionally lying to a foreign head of state, or is US policy being guided by clickbait?
Either way, Trump and team couldn't care less. None of them think they have any ethical responsibility to be honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,504
4,108
118
It's quite easy for Disney+ to lose money, because it turns out that streaming is a shitty business model.

It worked when it was only Netflix and looked like a goldmine, but it turns out that when there become a bunch of corporations fighting over audience share and needing to pay out big sums to get material, they can't make their money back. I think Netflix is the only one making a profit, and even then it's perhaps small one for what we might think of as a major company. Of course, Netflix needs to make a profit, because unlike most of the others, it's not a division of a much larger firm that can readily shuffle money back and forth to subsidise losses in other areas. But that's a lot of why they're all hiking up prices and/or introducing adverts.

Disney might be losing money on Disney+, but it's making a profit overall. They can afford the odd wasteful splurge here or there, whether its underperforming TV production to drive its streaming, or underwhelming movie sequels / reboots.
While that would be the case for most, does not Disney have enough movies and shows of it's own to stand out from most streaming services?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,344
3,152
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Trump ambushed Cyril Ramaphosa in front of the press at a White House meeting recently, showing him pictures and video footage he claimed showed the 'genocide' of white farmers in South Africa. I happened to watch part of this one live and it's fucking awkward.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out the pictures and footage weren't of what he claimed. Photos were from Goma in DRC; footage Trump claimed to show a mass grave of white farmers was actually a temporary memorial for 2 murder victims.

So the usual question with Trump, then: was he intentionally lying to a foreign head of state, or is US policy being guided by clickbait?

It got really bad when the four white dudes were the ones that Trump listened to and not the SA president

I think he was just doing a favour for a friend. A ketamine-riddled, doom scroller of a friend
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,807
7,005
118
While that would be the case for most, does not Disney have enough movies and shows of it's own to stand out from most streaming services?
Sort of. Disney could have stuffed a streaming service full of its much-loved output and generated a safe, decent income. But corporations lke Disney want to dominate media sectors and leverage their size for additional competitive advantage, not be boring, stable, middle-size money-generators. To become massive, Disney+ needed big, headline-grabbing material: new stuff that incites FOMO and drives viewers to subscribe in droves: their own "Stranger Things".

Via Marvel and Star Wars it has two IPs where it could spew out a ton of zeitgeisty, fan-friendly new material. So that's what it did. Unfortunately, many of those shows were either expensive despite being well received or were poorly received: one way or another, they weren't going to make enough money for the cost.

It was inevitable that eventually the fervour would fade and someone important would notice they were pissing away a lot of money for too little return. Thus Bob Iger pulling the plug on the splurge a year or two back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan