A big difference I noticed between Disney and Universal

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Really?

Adjusted for inflation:

Part 1 - 2001: $201 Million
Part 2 - 2003: $175 million
Part 4 - 2009: $175 million
Part 5 - 2011: $211 million
Part 6 - 2013: $231 million
Part 7 - 2015: $320 million

Seems pretty consistent to me. The last one has gone nuts due to Walkers' death in large part, but they all have done well.
Nice job ignoring international revenue and critical consensus.
 

squidward

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Nice job ignoring international revenue and critical consensus.

You guys keep going back and forth. He just said money doesn't matter. But OK, I'll appease you:

Worldwide Gross:

Part 1 - $207m
Part 2 - $236m
Part 4 - $363m
Part 5 - $626m
Part 6 - $788m
Part 7 - $1.3b

Critical Consensus (no idea why this matters, but according to RT):

Part 1 - 53%
Part 2 - 36%
Part 4 - 28%
Part 5 - 78%
Part 6 - 69%
Part 7 - 82%

I'm truly lost on what point you are trying to make here.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
You guys keep going back and forth. He just said money doesn't matter. But OK, I'll appease you:

Worldwide Gross:

Part 1 - $207m
Part 2 - $236m
Part 4 - $363m
Part 5 - $626m
Part 6 - $788m
Part 7 - $1.3b

Critical Consensus (no idea why this matters, but according to RT):

Part 1 - 53%
Part 2 - 36%
Part 4 - 28%
Part 5 - 78%
Part 6 - 69%
Part 7 - 82%

I'm truly lost on what point you are trying to make here.
He's correct, money doesn't matter in terms of critical perception and legacy. There was actually never a point beyond that.
 

squidward

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
No. Because that's not a word. And I'm generally against making up words to support an entire debate.

To me it sounds like you'll do anything to support your argument (which is completely ridiculous - Critical consensus is more important than money earned).
 

squidward

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'll do what I can to support my argument because I know I am right.

You're right that a series in which each movie has made more than the previous one is not beloved?
You're right that producers actually care if crap (your opinion) is being produced even if it's making them piles of cash?

That is your argument?
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
You're right that a series in which each movie has made more than the previous one is not beloved?
You're right that producers actually care if crap is being produced even if it's making them piles of cash?

That is your argument?
I'll stand by my statements: yes, producers know and will sacrifice quality for the almighty dollar. We had 4 awful Transformers films produced by Steven Spielberg, yet we all know he would never be caught dead actually directing those films. And that's just a single piece of evidence.
 

squidward

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I'll stand by my statements: yes, producers know and will sacrifice quality for the almighty dollar. We had 4 awful Transformers films produced by Steven Spielberg, yet we all know he would never be caught dead actually directing those films. And that's just a single piece of evidence.

I'm not saying they won't. Never anywhere did I say that. In fact, just the opposite. The name of the game is money. F&F movies make money. It's odd in the fact that each one makes more than the last, but to me that just says that the audience is happy with each film, whether it gets good or bad critical word of mouth.

As for Transformers, I can't explain that. I think they're utter Michael Bay crap, but that's just my opinion and I seem to be in the minority of moviegoers on that one.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying they won't. Never anywhere did I say that. In fact, just the opposite. The name of the game is money. F&F movies make money. It's odd in the fact that each one makes more than the last, but to me that just says that the audience is happy with each film, whether it gets good or bad critical word of mouth.

As for Transformers, I can't explain that. I think they're utter Michael Bay crap, but that's just my opinion and I seem to be in the minority of moviegoers on that one.
My simple point is this: the last few FF movies are very successful at what they try to accomplish, but don't confuse success with ambition and adoration.
 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
You guys keep going back and forth. He just said money doesn't matter. But OK, I'll appease you:

Worldwide Gross:

Part 1 - $207m
Part 2 - $236m
Part 4 - $363m
Part 5 - $626m
Part 6 - $788m
Part 7 - $1.3b

Critical Consensus (no idea why this matters, but according to RT):

Part 1 - 53%
Part 2 - 36%
Part 4 - 28%
Part 5 - 78%
Part 6 - 69%
Part 7 - 82%

I'm truly lost on what point you are trying to make here.

I think his point was that if a film wasn't a critical success, and fell into the guilty pleasure category, it wouldn't translate into a beloved theme park attraction. But I'd say maybe it doesn't have to be.

I admittedly only saw the first film in the series. I don't mind big time action films, I generally like them when I sit down and watch them, but I don't go seeking them out.

If it does turn out to be a simulator, I think it could potentially be awesome if it is set up like Star Tours with tons of different sequences.

And as I believe @Disneyhead'71 said earlier, UNI isn't afraid to swap out rides anymore when the fanfare dies down. So why not take a shot while the series is still hot.
 

BrianV

Well-Known Member
Lots of pages here...but I am just joining...sorry if this has been eaten to death...

Instead of comparing uni vs wdw, which is a pointless argument because both are awesome!, let's compare the two films (series) and their ability to not only bring in visitors to a theme park, but also to sell merchandise, specifically toys, clothing, music, etc. I suspect but cannot prove that Frozen would win that battle.


1920.jpg
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom