1. Due to the increased amount of spam bots on the forum, we are strengthening our defenses. You may experience a CAPTCHA challenge from time to time.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by Pomojema, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. ScumAndVillainy

    ScumAndVillainy Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Posts:
    310
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    692
    Credits:
    318
    Ratings:
    +470 / 108 / -129
    Lol.. no its not. When Furious 7 was peak Furious and then they came out with Furious 8, they didn't lose 40% equity. Furious 8 dropped-off half that (~20%) and lost $280 million, not $700 million.

    It took until the 5th Transformers movie before the series had a dropoff like that. Two through Four? Each built on the next. Now the 2nd Episodic Movie from Disney loses 40% and suddenly that's normal?

    Harry Potter went through like 8 movies, none of them having massive drop-offs, with the last well higher than the first. But hey, people liked those.. amirite?

    From the first to the last of The Hunger Games series, all performed in a similar range, and none had the Rainy Johnston Plunge.

    From the first to the last of Twilight series, all performed in a similar range, and none had the Rainy Johnston Plunge.

    And lets make one thing clear... This. Is. Star. Wars. Its supposed to do better than all that trash. Its supposed to be the leader of the pack. But apparently it can't hold more than 60% from the first movie of the new trilogy to the next? REALLY? If that's not underperformance, i mean, really.. what is?

    Observer: http://observer.com/2017/10/star-wars-last-jedi-box-office-predictions-force-awakens-lucasfilm/
    Slastfilm: http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-the-last-jedi-box-office-predictions/
    Forbes(doing their Chicken Little Scenario) : https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...ssimistic-box-office-prediction/#2be791075f1b

    Most predictions were low-to-mid $700 mil domestic and $1.5-1.7 bil worldwide. Nobody thought $1.3 billion was the number, not even Forbes trying to drum up a Worst Case Scenario for clickbaity reasons. Nobody thought it wouldn't beat The Avengers domestically. And absolutely no one saw Black Panther having any shot of out-grossing a SW Episodic Movie, both domestically and worldwide. If only they knew...

    But this was the most anticipated movie in two years. So much hype behind it is should have had a small drop off not a catastrophic one from TFA. The only wildcard being reception.. and well... people didn't like it. They came.. they saw it... they didn't come back in the same numbers as 2015. It was what it was and no amount of spin will fix it.

    Actually.. once again, they didn't claim it as a success in anything other than a comparison to Rogue One. Yup... I wholeheartedly agree.. it was a success in comparison to ROGUE ONE. Nothing at all off there. Trying to claim that means they said it was a success, period? Um.. no, they didn't.
     
    #901 ScumAndVillainy, Mar 12, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. Jayson

    Jayson Resident Lucasian

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    16,467
    Credits:
    8,697
    Ratings:
    +9,540 / 39 / -14
    Right, you're putting your metric on it. This should have done better because it's Star Wars, therefore it under-performed.
    That's not the measure for financial performance to Disney's business interest.
    It did not under-perform return over investment requirements for Disney.

    It under-performed your concept of what a Star Wars film should do for a sequel.

    As to the flow, I already addressed that several pages back by showing multiple very large and now classic title series with around the same range as TLJ's trend.

    People liked it fine. It wasn't a smash like TFA. That doesn't mean that it under-performed financially.
    As to the rest, again, I already addressed that.

    And they also stated that it was one of the titles, along with two others, which the successes of attributed to a combined 4 billion earning in the theatrical quarter.


    I think it's fine to say that in your mind TLJ should have made more money, and that you hold that the reason that it didn't came down to its content being low in quality.

    I also think it should be rather simple to assess financial performance independent of fan-base want.
    It financially succeeded. Full stop. That is a registered fact on public record now that Disney has filed their quarterly report with TLJ on record.

    There's no debate to be had, there's opinion in groves, but nothing you say nor I say will change whether or not Disney wrote TLJ down as under-performing or whether they wrote it down as a success financially.
    They wrote it down as a success financially. That ends the factual classification discussion regarding the performance category. The people who own it, spent money on it, answer for its earnings stated it as a financial success in at least 4 different ways in the quarterly report and not once listed it as being lower than what was needed or expected, and then further went on to brag about re-employing the same director for three additional films to the shareholders.

    Yeah, figure that out right?
    This under-performing film, Disney just bragged to the shareholders that they're going to keep using this idiot who made an under-performing film for three more films.

    No. They said it was a success and highlighted that Johnson will be making even more; implying more reliable earnings in the future to the shareholders.
    They listed Johnson in the same sentence as noting that the two writers from GOT will be working on a series project as well.
    As in, this is something the shareholders should look forward to.

    Why the hell would you say a shareholder should look forward to a director of a film which was an under-performance?
    What idiot level do you need to be to make that ploy?

    So no. Disney doesn't think this was an under-performing asset financially.
    You do. Not Disney.

    I guessed it to be close to around 1.5 billion. It's lower than that. That doesn't mean it under-performed.
    That means I was wrong.

    What determines if it under-performed is if Disney didn't make as much as they needed to bin it into a KPI of "success".
    They made enough for that, so it's in the bin of "success" and not in the bin of under-performing.
    That's the fact that's literally legally and historically on file.

    Opinions can be written and spoken all day long, but it's arguing with rocks on the mountain. TLJ did not under-perform. That is now a matter of legally filed financial record.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. ScumAndVillainy

    ScumAndVillainy Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Posts:
    310
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    692
    Credits:
    318
    Ratings:
    +470 / 108 / -129


    So you're saying that it was proper that it performed at a level equal to a lower tier Marvel Movie. Understood.

    Right. I forgot they don't like making money. $700 million? Who needs that?

    You don't know this. Nothing in the quarterly report said as such. All it did was compare it to Rogue One and term it a success in comparison. Anything else read into it beyond that, is simply making stuff up.

    Right. A SW Sequel should make less money than a Furious film. Understood! We now see where your view of the Star Wars IP actually is.

    Against Rogue One. Nothing more, nothing less was in the quarterly report. Stop inventing stuff.

    Also... Transformers 5 financially succeeded. Full stop. I doubt they'll be running out to make another as has been done previous.

    That it succeeded against Rogue One? ABSOLUTELY. REGISTERED FACT! Um... doesn't mean anything but that. Inventing new applications for that 'success' to apply to? Its hilarious that you have to do that, while sad.​

    Fixed that for you.

    You want to try to apply the term 'success', used specifically in the quarterly report to refer to TLJ's performance VS Rogue One, and make something more out of it and say that Disney declared TLJ a financial success, period, and in all cases. No, they did not.

    That is exactly what that means. If you expected 1.5 billion and it pulled $1.3 billion, by definition it underperformed your expectations by $200 million.

    About a lot of things.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  4. Jayson

    Jayson Resident Lucasian

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    16,467
    Credits:
    8,697
    Ratings:
    +9,540 / 39 / -14
    No.
    That comparison is invalid financially.
    It is a fan comparison.

    Incorrect.
    The comparison was to the quarter. The asset of the quarter happened to be Rogue One. It is not comparing to Rogue One. It is comparing to the quarterly earnings year over year.
    The quarterly results reflected an increase compared to the last fiscal quarter.
    This is the financial responsibility of TLJ given the quarter it resided in. It is designed to aid in creating earnings over the previous year's same quarter.
    If it under-performs the financial obligations unto its own self, then it cannot aid in delivering to the increase of the quarter as a whole, as it would not be within a KPI margin of success, and Disney is legally obligated to inform the shareholders that TLJ financially under-performed and did not generate successful earnings on investment.

    They further stated in the meeting:
    Which isn't a comparison to anything. It is a flat statement that the performances of all following titles were, and I quote here, "STRONG".

    You cannot have an under-performance as an asset and be listed as an asset belonging to a list of strong performances.

    Under-performance and strong performance are mutually exclusive KPIs.


    Let's employ this same logic that you used here. By your own logic, no one makes another entry of a series after an under-performing asset.

    From the quarterly report meeting transcript:
    By your same logic, Disney should not be giving Rian Johnson a whole trilogy and calling it an "exciting" "future" IF The Last Jedi under-performed.

    Disney IS giving Rian Johnson a whole trilogy and referring to it as being part of an exiting future for Star Wars.
    Therefore, by your own logic revolving around Transformers 5, Disney does not consider TLJ to have under-performed.


    Yes they did. See above.​

    You appear not to understand the difference between our expectations and financial earnings obligations.
    TLJ is not listed as under-performing. Disney is legally required to note if it was. Disney listed it multiple times in various ways as being a success in both the earnings report, and the transcript of the report meeting to the shareholders (which was publicly streamed live), where they listed it as an asset with a strong performance.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
  5. Mike

    Mike Rebel General

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    4,337
    Credits:
    842
    Ratings:
    +627 / 38 / -37

    LMAO, I see you're still up to old tricks jayson.

    Let me point something out to you...

    You are pointing to the quarterly report and it's referring to TLJ as being "strong" ok, fair enough...

    Earlier in this thread you declared Age Of Ultron a failure, as it didn't meet the required results of the equation you have thrown out there, an equation that you have also passed off as a pretty safe standard that the studios use to determine whether a movie is under-performing... I would hope you agree, and won't make me go back and pull your quotes...

    Sooooo about that Age Of Ultron....

    Disney's 2015 Q3 Report:

    https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/2015/10/Q3-FY15-Earnings-Report.pdf

    [​IMG]

    Let me repeat that just in case you missed it:

    Oh, and than there is the Earnings Conference Call in which it was stated:

    http://cdn.media.ir.thewaltdisneycompany.com/2015/q3/q3-fy15-earnings-transcript.pdf

    Yikes there's that word "strong" being associated with Age Of Ultron's performance again...

    From that same report:

    No it can't be... there's that word again.

    Now to go back in history:

    From you:
    The direct link to your post so that people can read the full post:

    https://thecantina.starwarsnewsnet....nancial-performance.53377/page-22#post-466435

    So you declare AOU a failure, or under-performing based on the graphs and your equation/formula (1.58). Yet Disney declares it's performance as strong and that it's performance helped give them a strong quarter and it's listed as belonging to a list of other strong performers... Disney is saying the same exact thing about Ultron that they did about The last Jedi. In the respective reports for each franchise...

    How can that be? You declared it a failure, and described why Disney would consider it a failure or under-performing... but... if I may use another one of your quotes:

    Can I repeat that just to make sure it sinks in...


    So what's going on here? Besides your observations cancelling each other out and being thrown to the wind right now?






     
    • Cute Cute x 1
    • Cocky Cocky x 1
    • Rude Rude x 1
  6. Jayson

    Jayson Resident Lucasian

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    16,467
    Credits:
    8,697
    Ratings:
    +9,540 / 39 / -14
    What's going on is I employed an ad-hoc equation that's intended for ballparking when you don't know the back-end business deal and it was wrong in comparison to the fiscal facts.

    That happens.

    Given an ad-hoc ballpark equation and a fiscal report; I'll take the fiscal report.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Mike

    Mike Rebel General

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    4,337
    Credits:
    842
    Ratings:
    +627 / 38 / -37

    No, you didn't just employ an ad-hoc equation. You used graphs from thenumbers.com, graphs that you have held up as being very good points of statistical information in a previous discussion between you and I on this thread.

    It's funny that you are downplaying your own equation a little, as before in this thread you continuously used it to try and prove everyone wrong about TLJ's performance. Now you want to say that you don't know the back end deals... OK... so lets say that Disney was able to work out a 70% share on Ultrons entire domestic run... that still only gets you to a 1.85, well below your magic number of 2.0 "where everyone can show up to work". Do you really think that Disney got 70% for the entire domestic run? What "back end deals" do you think Disney made that would push it past that magic 2.0 number? Or for them to declare it a strong performer? If you can't know that information, than you can't know what numbers Disney got for TLJ can you?

    You used that equation to shove your narrative down peoples throats as to how TLJ is not under-performing, and to basically dismiss (and maybe even mock) other peoples opinions, and now, when something comes up that isn't matching the narrative you have been pushing the last few months with your equation, well now it's ad-hoc and now's it's, you don't have all the info....

    So your reasoning is flawed than? Because if you don't know what the back end deals are, if you truly don't know what those numbers are, than your just pissing in the dark, and than using the puddle as proof against other peoples opinions. I have shown from people that actually wrote books on this subject that the international number you used, may not be correct, you dismissed that. Now here the equation that you have been using to defend TLJ is shown to have a flaw in it, and it's a lack of info... ?

    How about this... How about Disney is not going to call one of it's tent-pole, franchise movies a disappointment in a quarterly report or shareholders conference call because of the ramifications it may have with said shareholders... Hell, they won't even say Tomorrow land was a disappointment, they just say it was the cause of an "offset".

    To most people Ultron's box office numbers look awesome, they look strong, and Disney knows that. They know their shareholders aren't really interested in the details of individual movies. They know their shareholders just want to know if there was growth, i.e. more money. They want to hear good news, so when AOU has a $1.4 billion box office, than saying that Ultron had a strong performance is not lying. Especially when they qualify it's "strong" performance against what Winter Soldier did the year before ($714 million WW). It did perform strong, but, that is not the same thing as saying how profitable it was. There are word games at play.

    It's not a coincide in two of the three quotes from the Quarterly Report and Shareholders Conference Call, the word performance is used. Yes, Ultron's box office performance at $1.4 billion WW was a strong performance (especially when played against Winter Soldier). But that doesn't tell the story of it's profitably! That was basically your whole point of your now, "ad-hoc" equation. To show that it wasn't just about box office performance, but, about profitability. There are reasons why studios don't release their full expense/profits reports on their movies... They don't want their shareholders to know the specific details of each movie.
     
    #907 Mike, Mar 15, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. AfraidFool

    AfraidFool Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Posts:
    82
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Credits:
    534
    Ratings:
    +235 / 16 / -11
    -_-

    EDIT:
    The most important thing said here, is that Disney reported it as a success on a fiscal report.
    END OF STORY.
    You don't have the right to challenge that, it is a legal document.
    If you are going to post anything other than what is listed on the report then you might as well go open a lawsuit against Disney to prove your point.

    As Jayson said above, fiscal report trumps anything else.
    Disney clearly stated it was successful on the report. So stop arguing.

    There is plenty of non legally binding evidence that it was a success as well if you fancy that instead.
     
    #908 AfraidFool, Mar 15, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    • Wise Wise x 1
  9. Mike

    Mike Rebel General

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    4,337
    Credits:
    842
    Ratings:
    +627 / 38 / -37
    Well than, look at you, so who died and gave you the power to tell people that can't argue, or they can't disagree or they can't have an opinion. Or they can't look at the wording in a report differently than someone else.

    First of all, I will point out that I never said that Disney lied. I said there are word games at play based on how they worded their reports. Ultron performed strong at the Box Office, there is no doubt about that... but, it's pretty common knowledge that Ultron did not live up to Disney's expectations, and the end result was a pretty big shake-up at Marvel where people lost their jobs. I will also point out that I never said TLJ was a flop or a failure. I have consistently said that it made money. What my stance has always been is that it has under-performed everyone's expectations, including Disney's. Just because something made a profit, does not mean it has met expectations.

    Next point, the quarterly reports that are handed out to shareholders are not the legal documents. The forms that are filed with the SEC are:

    https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-quarterly-report.asp

    Now of course a company doesn't want to put information on the shareholders report that might conflict with their information that they file with the SEC. But guess what, at any given time as much as 20% of companies are lying on their quarterly reports in order to keep their share holders happy and to keep the price of the stock from dropping:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/study-20-of-companies-lie-earnings-stock-prices-2012-7

    Now again, I am not accusing Disney of out right lying, but, to just trust a company blindly just because you say is a bit dangerous and naive. Again, I think there is a little bit of wordplay going on that makes thing vague as to what they are talking about. Are they talking about Box Office performance as a source of revenue to make their comparison from one Quarter to the next, or are they talking about actual profitability?

    I personally think they are referring to Box Office as a whole, knowing that the extrapolation can be that higher Box Office, means higher revenue for the Studios division, which means higher profits (presumably).

    If one was to look at their other quarterly reports, one would be able to see some other ways they kind of dance around movies that didn't perform well. One of the Captain America movies seems to not have met expectations, but they won't come out and say that in the report. Instead they say that the last quarters revenue was higher because of the "success" of that previous quarters movies. Basically trying to say that it's not this or these movies fault in this quarter, it's just that the previous quarters movie were so successful. Which is again word games.

    If you look at the report differently than that's up to you. But I am not sure where you think you have any kind of authority to tell people to shut-up...
     
    • Cocky Cocky x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  10. AfraidFool

    AfraidFool Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Posts:
    82
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Credits:
    534
    Ratings:
    +235 / 16 / -11
    *follow's own advice*
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Benjamin Lewis

    Benjamin Lewis Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Posts:
    669
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    6,567
    Credits:
    2,675
    Ratings:
    +2,693 / 76 / -50
    There's overwhelming evidence saying TLJ was a financial success.

    There's no evidence saying it was a financial failure.

    People arguing for the side with no evidence, have no ground to stand on. That's all he's saying, and he's right.

    He hates the film, but he's still able to acknowledge the facts and evidence. Unlike most in this thread.
     
  12. Jayson

    Jayson Resident Lucasian

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    16,467
    Credits:
    8,697
    Ratings:
    +9,540 / 39 / -14
    As I've mentioned, there is a difference between estimates and fiscal responsibility.
    The graphs from TheNumbers are pretty reliable for the metric they are providing. That metric is how did 95% of films in the past 5 years with the same opening weekend as the target title perform? That's what creates the shaded area.
    By that metric UOA came in under it. TLJ did not.

    The equation, I have maintained all along, is an estimate method for figuring out net earnings in the absence of actual data, which we often do not have except for on a fiscal report.
    My error was in over-stepping the claim of failure with regards to UOA, as if that equation produces a result greater than 2.0, then you can typically be assured that the film in question did at least well enough. The higher that value goes above 2.0, the greater that success rate likely is.
    If, however, it is under 2.0, then it might have fiscally failed or under-performed, but it also may not have as there are many factors involved on the business side.
    For example, there may have been different flat-rate domestic percentages (as you note), there may have been modular domestic percentages, and there may have been a higher international percentage. Further, with Disney, since they are also the distributor, they can count the earnings a bit differently than a studio that is not also the distributor, and the equation assumes a position whereby the studio is not the distributor.
    There is no augmentation available to the equation that I know of for accounting for the distribution's contributions to the studio when they are of the same company.
    When a company owns both the production and distribution, they do get a higher return retained than if they are only the owner of the production.
    Perhaps these films would have been lower in Disney's ledgers if they were not the distributor, perhaps not. We are unlikely to be capable of learning that information.

    I also, in that same post, stated the estimate levels, which easily could be in error as those values are strictly guessed averages from reviewers over the years.
    I'm not aware of any actual data which can be employed to create a rolling average variation of the equation. It's really only for fans and reviewers to stick their thumbs up in the air as a rough gauge of how the wind is blowing.

    It's similar to legs in that respect, where neither actually tell what the final fiscal result is in regards to success or not.

    I further ended that post by stating that IF UOA was an example of under-performance that TLJ was not of the class of under-performance because it's equation results are higher, and it's TheNumbers equation results are better. So in both cases if UOA is considered a success by Disney, then TLJ absolutely is.

    But really, whatever Disney states fiscally in a legally binding quarterly report about the success or failure range of an asset, that's the actual factual status of that asset's success.
    Disney is not legally permitted to fluff the language to gloss over or cover up losses or depreciation in a quarterly report.

    Further, as I've already pointed out, Disney repeatedly does mention when there are shortfalls in earnings from assets.
    They don't always use the term "under-performance", but they also say "lower", "low", "soft", "unfavorable", and "decrease" (and sometimes do actually say "underperformance") in regards to assets that did not meat fiscal responsibilities.

    Out of over 1,000 pages of Disney quarterly reports, for example, some variation of these words exist the following amount of times:
    Low: 755
    Soft: 25
    Unfavorable: 35
    Decrease: 986
    Underperforming: 4

    Disney does not state assets are successes in any measure when they are fiscally not a success.


    Lastly,
    I'm not at any point stating that folks aren't allowed to have an opinion that TLJ under-performed.
    I've openly recognized that various individuals have a threshold which TLJ did not meet, and therefore in their opinion under-performed.

    We have seen quite a few ways that people see success in films, specifically Star Wars films, in this thread.
    Those are all perfectly fine opinions.

    By my own guess and estimates, as you'll recall, TLJ failed to achieve those thresholds.
    I happen to take the view that if a film fails to meet my estimates, that my estimates are wrong, and not that the film under-performed, but each is perfectly capable of retaining their own opinion.

    I'm not addressing opinion.
    I'm addressing the factual classification of under-performance and success.

    The factually financial position, at this point, of TLJ is that it was a success and not an under-performance.
    This is the fact in recorded financial history due to the listing in the quarterly reports, which are not glossing anything over and any position claiming such is the case would need to show legally passable evidence of deception of any degree (glossing being a form of deception). If it cannot be proven that Disney deceived anything on record, then their claim of their financial records regarding their assets is to be considered valid and fact.

    Until proven otherwise, legally, TLJ stands in Disney's records as financially successful.

    We can argue about whether we all think TLJ made as much as a Star Wars films should have made; that's fine.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
    --- Double Post Merged, Mar 15, 2018, Original Post Date: Mar 15, 2018 ---
    Just to be clear, Benjamin, if you're referring to me here. I definitely didn't hate TLJ.
    That said, even if I did, I would easily be able to say that it was a financial success.
    That's not hard to do.

    I hate The Titanic. It was a financial success.

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. AfraidFool

    AfraidFool Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Posts:
    82
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Credits:
    534
    Ratings:
    +235 / 16 / -11
  14. Benjamin Lewis

    Benjamin Lewis Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Posts:
    669
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Trophy Points:
    6,567
    Credits:
    2,675
    Ratings:
    +2,693 / 76 / -50
  15. Jayson

    Jayson Resident Lucasian

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Posts:
    2,160
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    16,467
    Credits:
    8,697
    Ratings:
    +9,540 / 39 / -14
    Ahhh, cool. :)

    Cheers,
    Jayson
     
  16. Rogues1138

    Rogues1138 Jedi Sentinel - Army of Light
    1030th Captain ** (Mod)

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Posts:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    40,897
    Trophy Points:
    161,967
    Credits:
    23,760
    Ratings:
    +43,591 / 82 / -39
    The Transformers films were successful until people got tired of them so if you're on the backlash wagon maybe star Wars films will go the fatigue route as well. Justice league a film I own cuz I liked it bombed at the box office but Warner bros is continuing on their merry way. So for those that want to see Disney and LFL burn it may happen in the near future. Just stop going to Disney films and tell all your friends to boycott Disney then maybe those that hate Disney will win. For me I'm enjoying the ride. TLJ made 1.3 billion dollars if Rain Johnson made Luke a badass maybe there would be more viewings but alas Disney knew that it wouldn't out do TFA so their happy. their stock may go up it might go down but Infinity War will save any so-called problems Disney may have end of rant carry on for those that want to see LFL and Disney BURN hahaha (Mark Hamill's Joker laugh... hahhaahahha)
     
    #916 Rogues1138, Mar 15, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Pessimistic Pessimistic x 1
  17. nightangel

    nightangel Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2015
    Posts:
    1,561
    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Trophy Points:
    7,592
    Credits:
    4,057
    Ratings:
    +3,509 / 217 / -41
    I fear you are right and Disney/LFL does not care for us fans. :(
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Rogues1138

    Rogues1138 Jedi Sentinel - Army of Light
    1030th Captain ** (Mod)

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Posts:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    40,897
    Trophy Points:
    161,967
    Credits:
    23,760
    Ratings:
    +43,591 / 82 / -39
    That wasn't my point, but I see yours :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Mike

    Mike Rebel General

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Posts:
    288
    Likes Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    4,337
    Credits:
    842
    Ratings:
    +627 / 38 / -37

    LOL... I really am not sure what to think. Are you someone that actually knows what they are talking about? Or are you someone that just shoots from the hip and hopes people don't call you out...

    for example

    No fluff?

    This is from the report they handed out to the shareholders:

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

    This is the from the 10-Q SEC filing that Disney filed the DAY BEFORE they released their report to the shareholders:

    http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=12522058&RcvdDate=2/6/2018&CoName=WALT DISNEY CO/&FormType=10-Q&View=html

    That is called Fluff! They change the wording from one report to the other. They make the wording more favorable for the shareholders report. They are fluffing up the shareholders....

    Why the change? Why change the wording? Because they want to make the shareholders feel good about what they're hearing. So they fluff up the shareholders report... That report is not a legally binding document like the SEC filing is...I'm not saying they are covering up for any kind of losses, but, can we please stop pretending that just because you say something is true doesn't make it so? Can we please stop pretending that Disney doesn't play word games in order to make things sound more favorable for their shareholders ears. If there was nothing wrong with calling TLJ a success, well why the need to change it from the SEC filing?

    Again, I am not accusing Disney of wrong doing, because I have no evidence to make the accusation. However, that doesn't mean that questions can't be asked when discrepancies like that are seen. I like to ask questions, I am not one to just sit there and ignore those things because I like Star Wars or because I like Disney.

    As for your equation/formula, as I said, you used that formula multiple times as a hammer to knock down peoples opinions, including mine. What I showed was that your formulas is irrelevant at best because if it can't match up with what Disney is saying about the performance of it's movies, than it can't be used as a way to debunk other peoples opinions. You can dance all around this and that all you want with this excuse and that excuse. That's the fact of the matter... Your forumla can't be substantiated against the "facts" of the quarterly report.


    I have acknowledge the facts too.. You can go back and look at my posts. I have said over and over and over and over, that TLJ was a financial success, that it made money, that it wasn't a flop. This problem is that with your freinds post they basically told everyone to shut up, that jayson is right, and if you don't agree with them, to stop arguing, or in other words to shut up. But I get hit with the rudes and dislikes? Well because I am being judged not on my actual content, but by petty tribalism.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Cocky Cocky x 1
  20. AfraidFool

    AfraidFool Rebel Trooper

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Posts:
    82
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Credits:
    534
    Ratings:
    +235 / 16 / -11
    @Mike
    You should stop paraphrasing people.

    You're getting dislikes because of your post's content, I guarantee it--not tribalism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...

Share This Page