OFFICIAL NEWS A Lasting Record Of TLJ's Financial Performance.

Basicly

You: People saw TLJ opening weekend and then they dont find butts to there seats compare to Jumanji.

Me: Take opening weekend out of the equitation and TLJ still made more money then Jumanji. More money = more people = butts to the seats.

You: No no no, TLJ invested more money so Jumanji has more return in % per butt so they find more butt% to there seats.

Its almost like three people arguing about a stick is 2 m, 200 cm or 20 dm. They all say they same thing.

 

HAHAHA!! I'm sorry... I just can't anymore...

EDIT:
I think we're done here everyone.

It all makes sense now, the ratio of butts in seats to TLJ's 'legs' on the ground was low!
I mean technically my butt wasn't in the seat, I watched the movie standing on my head. Probably why the movie 'failed' in the box office amirite?

 

You're trying way too hard to invent some way i'm talking about percentages. Once again.. i'm not. I talked about a ratio, commonly known to the layman as a multiplier, known to no one other than the mathematically inept as a percentage.

A ratio is the size of two different things to each another. Star Wars earned 2.8 dollars domestically per every 1 dollar earned on Opening Weekend.

A percentage is the subset(or per proportion) per 100 to a larger set. If you were talking in terms of percentage in this area, you'd take (OW / DT) * 100 to find out how much of the overall total applied to Opening Weekend(~35.56%). DT being Domestic Total.

If you don't understand the difference and think its all equal(per your example), just move along.

Just FYI, The only place I've ever heard anyone talking about decimeters is when learning the metric system in school.

centi, milli, micro, or nano are fairly common in some arenas... never deci.

 

I think we can all agree based off of this that a percentage is absolutely NOTHING compared to a ratio. I mean.... they're completely different.
1 to 2.8 can't possibly be expressed as a percentage people. IT WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE.

 

See... this guy gets it. Even if he doesn't really.

 

Well... assuming BP holds its legs(and there is no reason not to), it almost looks like a certainly that TLJ will get rolled over domestically by BP at the minimum(we'll have to see on foreign. Interestingly enough, TLJ beat BP to $500 million by a single day, but that day was also part of the last weekend before the box office reverted to normal as people went back to work and school. Once the 2nd of January hit and the movie turned into a pumpkin with no legs, largely forgotten by audiences, TLJ would only earn almost exactly $100 million more domestically as it scraped bottom. As a contrast... Jumanji 2's legs were $224 million. It actually earned more money after the 1st of January($224 mil), than it did before($169 mil) and is still in the top 10 this weekend (#7 with a respectable $4.5 million). TFA earned $249 million in the same time period(post-Jan 1st).

Right now, BP needs $118 million more on its back-end to cross TLJ, and may have a shot at $700 million depending on how strong its legs are.

Also of note... given that the 3-weeks between the two movies are similar overall, its interesting to see that TLJ cannibalized its weekend demand by spreading some of it out across the week, whereas BP has had normal weekday dropoffs while people focus on watching it on the weekends, having better weekend holds. In fact, BP's 3rd weekend was almost as high as TLJ's 2nd. In this way, BP has performed more like a big summer release, without the competition normally found in the summer. TLJ performed like a Summer Release, but with its money more spread out across the 3-week period.

Either way, we'll see if BP has the legs TLJ never had.

 

Well looks like we've got the Legman in here, where is Wheels?

 

if you told me that a superhero film would beat episode 8....i would have called you a retard, lets hope this sends a clear message to disney to reduce kennedys role and drop rian johnson

 

Oh gee look at this!

Last Jedi sits at 6th while Black Panther sits at 9th. R1 is 8th. You just don't like TLJ and that's why you want him fired. It doesn't change the fact that the film made money.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

 

It also doesn't change the fact that the film cost the Brand upwards of a billion dollars in overall damage, with likely more to follow.

Another profit or two like that and Mickey might have to start mowing lawns. They're already bracing for Solo being the first film of the set not to actually make a profit after Kennedy's bumbling forced it to basically be made twice. There is no guarantee 9 won't follow it into the night.

Should we start calling it a Pyrrhic Profit?

 

Cheers,
Jayson

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 7, 2018, Original Post Date: Mar 7, 2018 ---

For anyone wondering if TLJ holds a bad smell for Disney, we're past the release of their Q1 results and meetings, so we have that information available now.

TLJ, along with the others, was actually cited as helping to offset shortfalls in the distribution section.

https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy18-earnings-transcript-1.pdf

https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q1-fy18-earnings.pdf

Also, Rian Johnson is listed as being something they are looking forward to.

There's nothing indicating that TLJ was part of a shortfall or underperformance in their Q1 report, and they definitely do list their shortfalls (as can be seen in their discussion regarding TV/SVOD, as well as a few other assets elsewhere in the document), nor do they appear to be under any impression that Johnson was a bad bet that needs replacing.

Also...it's pretty silly to pit things like BP against TLJ when you can look and see Disney smiling about both in their Q1 discussions (with BP being discussed as upcoming).
Hate what you want for taste, but TLJ doesn't appear to be one of the assets that Disney is disappointed with out of their assets.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Uhu.

 

Good thing they had Rogue One to compare it to, even though it was an apples and oranges comparison given the structure of the series, and not say TFA, which it was following up. Right?

I lol'd at that.

 

And yet you're here comparing it to BP... all the while ignoring pretty basic percentag*cough*--ratios

 

From a financial perspective, Disney did not indicate in their Q1 report any view that TLJ underperformed, but instead listed it as an asset which performed well and aided in offsetting poor performances by other distribution assets.

TLJ may have underperformed your expectations, but Disney has no indication of this in their earning report and instead only has praise for the asset.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Right.. by comparing it against Rogue One lolololol.

Everything they said was true.. from a certain point of view. The only big no-no is lying. Beyond that you can rosy it up to make it look how you want it to. Particularly if the film was still in theaters and would be impacted if you slagged off on it.

There is reading a quarterly report, and understanding a quarterly report. You only do the former. That they had to compare TLJ to Rogue One says a lot.

How many times in this thread has anyone gone and said.. you know what we need? TO COMPARE THIS TO ROGUE ONE. Its a complete misunderstanding of the structure of Star Wars for spin purposes by Disney. They don't do that if the movie did well enough that a comparison with TFA wouldn't look like a murder.

 

Quarterly reports only compare to the previous year's same quarter.
No one gives a standard quarter report comparing to a conceptual asset comparison such as "sequel".

Disney does not need to compare it to TFA in the QR to report if they are happy with TLJ.

They are.
You aren't.
It's their money.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Wait... what?! HAHA.

A quarterly report is how well the company did in the quarter. You're free to compare to last year's quarter, the last decade, or against McDonald's French fries if you want.

You can compare against anything you so desire. There isn't some mythical hardcoded structure at play here. In this case, they compared against Rogue One with the justification that it was the most recent SW movie. They were more than free to compare it against TFA, but why make the movie look horrible comparing it to what it was following, when you can compare it to a standalone release that did relatively worse in comparison? Once again, the only restriction here is you can't lie about the film or revenues. That one is a big no-no. But you can certainly frame the argument to your hearts content to impart warm fuzzies, and that's what they did.

They compare it against whatever makes it look good so the investors are happy. In this case, Rogue One. It certainly didn't bomb, it certainly made some money, so they had leeway here.

One thing they won't do? Put their true feelings about how the movie performed in a quarterly report. Just lol if you ever think they'd do that. That's not what a QR is for and would get them fired on the spot if they were ever to do such a silly thing.

Heck, the only true indications a company is really down on their product are a) if you see any form of write-down, b) they don't make any more films of that IP, or c) the writer/director never ends up working for them again. They don't exactly run out in the street and start slagging off on their own movies, along with the people that made them.

Everything else is castle intrigue and gossip as reported by a trade mag like Variety, with how much is true being left up to the reader.

 

Scumandvillainy be like

 

Have you ever attended quarterly reports, or been involved in ebitda management?

Cheers,
Jayson