Great Movie Ride and the apparent lack of Kubrick

[lebeau]

You beat me by a minute and put a lot more research into it too. I think you get the gold medal post.

It's basically what I do at the blog. My What the Hell Happened series is a deep dive into an actor's career. We have very long and detailed conversations over whether or not a movie was a flop. So it's a subject I know very well.

I also realize MP is trolling. For whatever reasons, the subject of the Muppets brings out his inner troll. Now that I have definitively made my point, I'll let this one go. I know there's no reasoning with him on this subject. Everyone here knows that by now.

 

[acishere]

No, you're in denial because you like the franchise. It has not broken even. It won't break even. Not a chance.

I have yet to see the film. I didn't really think it looked worth paying 12 bucks for. So I doubt I can be called a fan. I just looked at the numbers.

 

[Magenta Panther]

We have a winner.

Careful. Do you really want me to pull up even more facts and further disturb your delusion?

I didn't want to do this. But you have left me no choice. Let's look at the numbers of the entire series.

The least successful Muppet movie of all times was Muppets in Space in 1999. With a production budget of 24 million, it grossed less than 17 million domestic. Even with the foreign grosses, it failed to recoup its production costs. That's what you call a flop. Muppets in Space opened at #10 at the box office. Everything you have said about Muppets Most Wanted was true of Muppets in Space. Still, it did not kill the franchise. It merely put the movies on ice for a while.

The next lowest grossing Muppet movie was Muppets Take Manhattan in 1984. The production budget isn't listed. But it opened at #5 and grossed over $25 million domestic. That's more than Muppets in Space made and that was in 1984 dollars. This is what you would call a disappointment just like Muppets Most Wanted. The result was that there would not be another Muppet Movie for 8 years. Also the franchise went off in a different direction including a return to TV. History will most likely repeat itself.

Next on the list is Muppet Christmas Carol. After Muppets Take Manhattan, the movie series went dormant for 8 years. When the Muppets returned to the big screen, it was to tell a classic story with a Muppets spin. The budget was a mere 12 million dollars. It opened at #6 which isn't great. But it went on to gross a respectable $27 million and has been a moneymaker on video ever since.

Coming in at #5 on the list is The Great Muppet Caper which was the follow up to the original Muppet Movie. It opened at #5 and grossed less than half of what the first movie made. Hey wow. That sounds a lot like the similarly themed caper sequel, Muppets Most Wanted. It's almost like Disney was trying to repeat history. The Great Muppet Caper was a box office disappointment that has done well on video.

The fourth most successful Muppet movie was Muppets Treasure Island in 1996. It followed in the footsteps of Muppet Christmas Carol by retelling a family classic with a Muppet spin. It opened at #3 which is great by the standards of the series and grossed almost $35 million. That's basically a base hit. Enough to get Muppets in Space greenlit. We all saw how that turned out.

That brings us to the third highest-grossing movie in the series which is Muppets Most Wanted. It opened up at #2. Anyone who expected it to open in the top spot must not have known the series history or what else was opening that week. The production budget was $50million which is more than is wise to spend on a Muppet sequel. Domestically, it grossed just over $50 million. That's not good. No doubt about it. But it's not a disaster either. Most movies are neither hits nor flops. Muppets Most Wanted fits in that category. It also grossed around $20 million overseas. That is not pure profit. Counting heavy marketing, the movie probably still hasn't turned a profit. But it most likely will on video. Obviously, Disney is not going to be happy with the performance of the movie. But to a very large degree, they have themselves to blame. They opened the movie in a death slot. Frozen was still drawing audiences, Mr. Peabody and Sherman was about to open and most importantly it got steamrolled by Divergent. That's too much competition for a Muppet sequel. Especially when the marketing didn't distinguish it from any of the previous movies. Frankly, it looked like The Great Muppet Caper remake.

Next we have The Muppet Movie which grosses over $65 million in 1979. That makes the first movie in the series one of only two unqualified hits. Which is completely understandable. At that time, the Muppets were at the peak of their popularity. They had been building an audience on TV for years. A Muppet movie was an event at the time.

Finally, we have 2011's The Muppets. Although it is the highest-grossing Muppet movie with over $88 million domestic and over $165 million world wide, I suspect Disney was hoping for more when they relaunched the series. I think they were aiming for $100 million domestic. It had been over a decade since the last Muppet movie and that made The Muppets an event again. But as we saw with The Great Muppet Caper in 1981, a Muppet sequel won't draw the same kind of numbers.

Frankly, the Muppets are not movie stars. They were designed to be on TV. They were made with the specific intent of satirizing what was on TV at the time. The Muppet Show was the perfect vehicle for the Muppets during the era of variety shows. But the characters weren't designed for a movie franchise. They don't have their own story to tell. They can be used to satirize just about any genre, but that works better on TV than it does in movies.

I don't think you are going to find anyone who is going to claim that Muppets Most Wanted was a box office success. It wasn't. But it wasn't a flop either. In fact, it's right in line with what any reasonable person would have expected.

My god, what a load of spin. You ARE a dyed-in-the-felt Muppet fanatic, aren't you? (Not that there was ever much doubt). Your latest palaver only blows your credibility completely. I keep posting facts, and you deny them and spin spin spin. "Right in line with what any reasonable person would have expected"? You mean reasonable people EXPECTED the puppet film to be a "disappointment" (YOUR word, as I recall)? What an interesting world you live in. And I bet Disney is just thrilled with that "disappointment". It's the only "reasonable" reaction, I suppose. As to the film's scheduling and the stupid "It's all Disney's fault" excuse, well, let's see...didn't the first Muppet film go up against, oh, hmmm, what WAS that movie's name, OH YEAH, "Breaking Dawn", an installment of the "Twilight" franchise? But some folks seem to think the puppet movie did all right, sorta. So much for blaming Disney for the sequel's failure. Nice try.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I have yet to see the film. I didn't really think it looked worth paying 12 bucks for. So I doubt I can be called a fan. I just looked at the numbers.

Then you'd better look at the numbers again: 55 million budget, not including advertising, only 70 million worldwide box office. A movie has to make twice its budget to break even. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Now that's just ignorant.

There's still a lot of income to be made. Pinocchio was a flop when it was released. I hear it ended up doing all right eventually.

You're comparing "Muppets Most Wanted" to "Pinocchio"? Now that's really ignorant. That's not even worthy of a rebuttal.

Ah, but keep it up. This is fun.

 

[Matt_Black]

I didn't want to do this. But you have left me no choice. Let's look at the numbers of the entire series.

The least successful Muppet movie of all times was Muppets in Space in 1999. With a production budget of 24 million, it grossed less than 17 million domestic. Even with the foreign grosses, it failed to recoup its production costs. That's what you call a flop. Muppets in Space opened at #10 at the box office. Everything you have said about Muppets Most Wanted was true of Muppets in Space. Still, it did not kill the franchise. It merely put the movies on ice for a while.

The next lowest grossing Muppet movie was Muppets Take Manhattan in 1984. The production budget isn't listed. But it opened at #5 and grossed over $25 million domestic. That's more than Muppets in Space made and that was in 1984 dollars. This is what you would call a disappointment just like Muppets Most Wanted. The result was that there would not be another Muppet Movie for 8 years. Also the franchise went off in a different direction including a return to TV. History will most likely repeat itself.

Next on the list is Muppet Christmas Carol. After Muppets Take Manhattan, the movie series went dormant for 8 years. When the Muppets returned to the big screen, it was to tell a classic story with a Muppets spin. The budget was a mere 12 million dollars. It opened at #6 which isn't great. But it went on to gross a respectable $27 million and has been a moneymaker on video ever since.

Coming in at #5 on the list is The Great Muppet Caper which was the follow up to the original Muppet Movie. It opened at #5 and grossed less than half of what the first movie made. Hey wow. That sounds a lot like the similarly themed caper sequel, Muppets Most Wanted. It's almost like Disney was trying to repeat history. The Great Muppet Caper was a box office disappointment that has done well on video.

The fourth most successful Muppet movie was Muppets Treasure Island in 1996. It followed in the footsteps of Muppet Christmas Carol by retelling a family classic with a Muppet spin. It opened at #3 which is great by the standards of the series and grossed almost $35 million. That's basically a base hit. Enough to get Muppets in Space greenlit. We all saw how that turned out.

That brings us to the third highest-grossing movie in the series which is Muppets Most Wanted. It opened up at #2. Anyone who expected it to open in the top spot must not have known the series history or what else was opening that week. The production budget was $50million which is more than is wise to spend on a Muppet sequel. Domestically, it grossed just over $50 million. That's not good. No doubt about it. But it's not a disaster either. Most movies are neither hits nor flops. Muppets Most Wanted fits in that category. It also grossed around $20 million overseas. That is not pure profit. Counting heavy marketing, the movie probably still hasn't turned a profit. But it most likely will on video. Obviously, Disney is not going to be happy with the performance of the movie. But to a very large degree, they have themselves to blame. They opened the movie in a death slot. Frozen was still drawing audiences, Mr. Peabody and Sherman was about to open and most importantly it got steamrolled by Divergent. That's too much competition for a Muppet sequel. Especially when the marketing didn't distinguish it from any of the previous movies. Frankly, it looked like The Great Muppet Caper remake.

Next we have The Muppet Movie which grosses over $65 million in 1979. That makes the first movie in the series one of only two unqualified hits. Which is completely understandable. At that time, the Muppets were at the peak of their popularity. They had been building an audience on TV for years. A Muppet movie was an event at the time.

Finally, we have 2011's The Muppets. Although it is the highest-grossing Muppet movie with over $88 million domestic and over $165 million world wide, I suspect Disney was hoping for more when they relaunched the series. I think they were aiming for $100 million domestic. It had been over a decade since the last Muppet movie and that made The Muppets an event again. But as we saw with The Great Muppet Caper in 1981, a Muppet sequel won't draw the same kind of numbers.

Frankly, the Muppets are not movie stars. They were designed to be on TV. They were made with the specific intent of satirizing what was on TV at the time. The Muppet Show was the perfect vehicle for the Muppets during the era of variety shows. But the characters weren't designed for a movie franchise. They don't have their own story to tell. They can be used to satirize just about any genre, but that works better on TV than it does in movies.

I don't think you are going to find anyone who is going to claim that Muppets Most Wanted was a box office success. It wasn't. But it wasn't a flop either. In fact, it's right in line with what any reasonable person would have expected.

Very interesting, but that's just a sheer dollars standpoint. For instance, I've heard many people cite that Muppets Christmas Carol is one of the best and most faithful adaptations of A Christmas Carol that's been made; people genuinely enjoy the film, and it's aired every year at Christmas, putting it on par for many with It's a Wonderful Life (another film that didn't well at the box office; I guess that's a big flop in MP's book), Miracle on 34th St, and Die Hard.

Let's take a look at the critic and audience ratings for each movie from Rotten Tomatoes.

The Muppet Movie- Critics: 89%, Audiences: 88%
The Great Muppet Caper- Critics & Audiences: 79% (which is somewhat disheartening to me, as it's my fave)
The Muppets Take Manhattan- Critics: 81%, Audiences 76%
The Muppet Christmas Carol- Critics: 69%, Audiences 86%
Muppet Treasure Island- Critics: 70%, Audiences 77%
Muppets From Space (also known as the one I'm trying to forget ever happened)- Critics: 63%, Audiences 59%
The Muppets- Critics: 96% (okay, I'll admit that is HIGHLY overrated), Audiences: 80%
Muppets Most Wanted- Critics: 75%, Audiences: 65%

Even the objectively worst film, Muppets From Space, falls in the "Fair to Middling" range rather than "It's Manos in Felt" as far as "Is this a good movie?" goes.

And one final thing- just because a movie isn't well liked when it first comes out doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Both Alice In Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were considered failures for the studio when they were first released, but eventually found an audience with re-releases and television broadcasts and are now regarded as classics.

 

[lebeau]

Careful. Do you really want me to pull up even more facts and further disturb your delusion?

Facts? So far all you have done is look for articles that contain the word "flop" in them. Almost all of them were in reference to the movie's opening weekend and were examples of hyperbole. You have yet to post a single fact.

My god, what a load of spin. You ARE a dyed-in-the-felt Muppet fanatic, aren't you? (Not that there was ever much doubt).

I like The Muppets. I grew up on them. I own The Muppet Movie on DVD. I have seen one Muppet movie in the theater. That was Muppet Christmas Carol which I only went to because my parents asked me to take my younger siblings. So fanatic? Probably not by most people's standards.

You however, are a Muppet hater on a grand scale. Not that I am telling you anything everyone here doesn't already know. One of us has proven themselves to be completely incapable of being objective and it's not me.

Me? I fully admit Muppets Most Wanted was not a success at the box office. I'm not spinning anything. You? You're using every trick in jt's arsenal. Yikes!

Your latest palaver only blows your credibility completely.

I keep posting facts, and you deny them and spin spin spin. "Right in line with what any reasonable person would have expected"? You mean reasonable people EXPECTED the puppet film to be a "disappointment" (YOUR word, as I recall)?

Yes. Disney miscalculated. They expected to build upon the success of the first movie. They thought that the second one would crack the $100 million mark. Otherwise, they wouldn't have spent $50 million on it. They spent more on the sequel then they did on the first one. That was unrealistic as I pointed out.

A reasonable person would have looked at the history of the Muppets and realized that $100 million dollars was unrealistic. They shouldn't have spent that much. They should have spent less on a sequel, not more.

What an interesting world you live in. And I bet Disney is just thrilled with that "disappointment".

No, obviously they are not. I'm sure they are very disappointed in the movie's performance. That's what makes it a disappointment.

It's the only "reasonable" reaction, I suppose.

Really trying to get some mileage out of that. How do you think it's working out for you so far? You think you have convinced anyone?

As to the film's scheduling and the stupid "It's all Disney's fault" excuse, well, let's see...didn't the first Muppet film go up against, oh, hmmm, what WAS that movie's name, OH YEAH, "Breaking Dawn", an installment of the "Twilight" franchise? But some folks seem to think the puppet movie did all right, sorta. So much for blaming Disney for the sequel's failure. Nice try.

It's funny you should bring that up. Let's look at that in detail, shall we?

The previous week, Happy Feet Two opened up against Twilight and got steamrolled. The following week, The Muppets opened and became the family movie of choice for the Thanksgiving season. This year, The Muppets Most Wanted got the Happy Feet Two slot and Mr. Peabody & Sherman got the winning release date.

Facts are fun.

You're comparing "Muppets Most Wanted" to "Pinocchio"? Now that's really ignorant. That's not even worthy of a rebuttal.

Ah, but keep it up. This is fun.

Not worth a rebuttal because obviously you don't have one.

I'm not comparing the two movies in terms of quality. But history is filled with movies that were not successful in their theatrical run but went on to be profitable. Anyone who tells you a movie will never make a profit (as you did) knows nothing about movies. Or will say anything to make a point whether it can be backed up or not. Which guy do you prefer to be?

Then you'd better look at the numbers again: 55 million budget, not including advertising, only 70 million worldwide box office. A movie has to make twice its budget to break even. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story.

Except obviously it is not the end of the story.

There is still income to be made. In the long run, most movies are profitable. Odds are, Muppets Most Wanted will eventually turn a profit. Not one that will make Disney happy. But it will almost certainly get into the black eventually. It will run on cable for decades. It will still be making Disney money after you and I are gone. Not much, but some.

Can't wait to see which word or phrase you fixate on next in your desperate spinning. Have fun and don't get dizzy.

 

[Matt_Black]

There is still income to be made. In the long run, most movies are profitable.

Indeed. Even Treasure Planet eventually turned a profit, and that's considered the most financially unsuccessful film ever from Walt Disney Studios Animation.

 

[lebeau]

Very interesting, but that's just a sheer dollars standpoint. For instance, I've heard many people cite that Muppets Christmas Carol is one of the best and most faithful adaptations of A Christmas Carol that's been made; people genuinely enjoy the film, and it's aired every year at Christmas, putting it on par for many with It's a Wonderful Life (another film that didn't well at the box office; I guess that's a big flop in MP's book), Miracle on 34th St, and Die Hard.

Let's take a look at the critic and audience ratings for each movie from Rotten Tomatoes.

The Muppet Movie- Critics: 89%, Audiences: 88%
The Great Muppet Caper- Critics & Audiences: 79% (which is somewhat disheartening to me, as it's my fave)
The Muppets Take Manhattan- Critics: 81%, Audiences 76%
The Muppet Christmas Carol- Critics: 69%, Audiences 86%
Muppet Treasure Island- Critics: 70%, Audiences 77%
Muppets From Space (also known as the one I'm trying to forget ever happened)- Critics: 63%, Audiences 59%
The Muppets- Critics: 96% (okay, I'll admit that is HIGHLY overrated), Audiences: 80%
Muppets Most Wanted- Critics: 75%, Audiences: 65%

Even the objectively worst film, Muppets From Space, falls in the "Fair to Middling" range rather than "It's Manos in Felt" as far as "Is this a good movie?" goes.

And one final thing- just because a movie isn't well liked when it first comes out doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Both Alice In Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were considered failures for the studio when they were first released, but eventually found an audience with re-releases and television broadcasts and are now regarded as classics.

All very good points.

I was focusing on the box office because that is what most people think of when they call a movie a flop. But in truth, it is only a part of the story. To truly be a flop, a movie must be a "total failure". Very few movies actually are.

But people like to say "flop". It's more interesting than being accurate. "Flop" gets more attention than "disappointment". But "disappointment" is accurate and "flop" is not.

Recently, someone went to great lengths to argue that Peter Jackson's King Kong was a flop. That movie had largely positive reviews, made a sizeable profit and was nominated for and won several Academy Awards. When you start calling every movie you don't like a flop, the term uses all meaning. Reserve it for movies that actually flopped.

 

[Matt_Black]

All very good points.

I was focusing on the box office because that is what most people think of when they call a movie a flop. But in truth, it is only a part of the story. To truly be a flop, a movie must be a "total failure". Very few movies actually are.

But people like to say "flop". It's more interesting than being accurate. "Flop" gets more attention than "disappointment". But "disappointment" is accurate and "flop" is not.

Recently, someone went to great lengths to argue that Peter Jackson's King Kong was a flop. That movie had largely positive reviews, made a sizeable profit and was nominated for and won several Academy Awards. When you start calling every movie you don't like a flop, the term uses all meaning. Reserve it for movies that actually flopped.

Exactly. To be a flop, I think it has to be a high-profile film (Manos: The Hands of Fate, is just a really, really, REALLY bad independent movie) that failed commercially AND is met with scorn and derision from critics and audiences alike. Year One, starring Jack Black & Michael Cera? Flop. Serenity? Not a flop.

 

[lebeau]

Exactly. To be a flop, I think it has to be a high-profile film (Manos: The Hands of Fate, is just a really, really, REALLY bad independent movie) that failed commercially AND is met with scorn and derision from critics and audiences alike. Year One, starring Jack Black & Michael Cera? Flop. Serenity? Not a flop.

I tend to weight things more heavily towards box office than critical reaction. I do believe a movie can be beloved by critics and still flop at the box office. But if a movie is liked by critics and grossed somewhere in the vicinity of its production cost, it's not a flop.

A few weeks ago, there was an article about the flops of 2014. Amazingly, Muppets Most Wanted didn't crack the top 5. Here are the true flops of 2014:

Pompeii
Credit: Sony Pictures


Pompeii

“Pompeii” was released on Feb. 21 and only made $23 million domestically against a $100 million budget. The film did a bit better overseas with a worldwide gross of almost $95 million.

Even with the boost of the foreign market, “Pompeii” still managed to lose 5 percent of its budget in the theater.

“Pompeii” only has a 64 percent worth-your-time rating on OK.com with an age appropriateness rating of 14+.

The Legend of Hercules



The Legend of Hercules
Credit: Summit Entertainment


If you never saw “The Legend of Hercules,” don’t worry, no one else did either.

The film only made $18.8 million at the domestic box office on a $70 million budget. The foreign market threw in another $38 million to bring the film’s overall gross to a little under $57 million.

While “The Legend of Hercules” made a solid effort to break even, it still lost 19 percent of its budget at the end of the day.

“The Legend of Hercules” is only at a 14 percent worth-your-time on OK.com with an age rating of 15+.

Sabotage



Sabotage
Credit: Open Road


Arnold Schwarzenegger really wanted you to come see his movie “Sabotage,” but you didn’t. Neither did your neighbors or even their in-laws.

The movie only made $10 million domestically and $14 million worldwide on a $35 million budget. That means Arnie’s comeback managed to lose 57 percent of its budget.

Maybe he should take another shot at politics.

“Sabotage” has a solid zero percent worth-your-time on OK.com with an 18+ age rating.

Winter’s Tale



Winter's Tale
Credit: Warner Bros.


On Valentine’s Day you had the opportunity to see “Winter’s Tale” and a few people did, but not many.

The movie was hammered by critics, and audiences stayed far away.

The movie only made $12 million domestically and $27 worldwide on a $60 million budget.

Big time actors like Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Colin Farrell and a bizarre cameo from Will Smith couldn't save this movie.

When all was said and done, “Winter’s Tale” managed to lose 54 percent of its budget.

The movie has a 22 percent worth-your-time rating and a 15+ age rating on OK.com.

Transcendence

For Wally Pfister’s first directing gig, he managed to recruit talents like Johnny Depp, Paul Bettany, Rebecca Hall, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy, but none of them could save the film from becoming a box office disaster.

The film had a production budget of $100 million and has only made $21 million domestically. That’s more than a $78 million loss. It hasn’t fared much better worldwide, making just $54 million overall for a $45.5 million loss.



Transcendence
Credit: Warner Bros.


As of right now “Transcendence” has lost 45 percent of its budget.

“Transcendence” is at a 62 percent worth-your-time rating and a 14+ on OK.com.

With all of that said, “Sabotage” has lost the largest bulk of its budget, 57 percent overall, but we can’t call it the biggest flop of 2014.

That title belongs to “Transcendence.”

Considering the huge cast and even bigger budget, “Transcendence” has not only lost the most amount of money, but it’s also one of the biggest disappointments of the year.


Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1205&sid=29768532#fcADjbymJrq7PpVL.99

 

[Matt_Black]

I tend to weight things more heavily towards box office than critical reaction. I do believe a movie can be beloved by critics and still flop at the box office. But if a movie is liked by critics and grossed somewhere in the vicinity of its production cost, it's not a flop.

A few weeks ago, there was an article about the flops of 2014. Amazingly, Muppets Most Wanted didn't crack the top 5. Here are the true flops of 2014:

That article brings up another interesting point- as of late, Johnny Depp has been in some TERRIBLY received movies. Do you think the failure of Transcendence or The Lone Ranger is going to keep Disney from cranking out PotC 5? HAH.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Indeed. Even Treasure Planet eventually turned a profit, and that's considered the most financially unsuccessful film ever from Walt Disney Studios Animation.

Yeah, that's why Disney made a sequel of it. Oh wait....

 

[Magenta Panther]

Facts? So far all you have done is look for articles that contain the word "flop" in them. Almost all of them were in reference to the movie's opening weekend and were examples of hyperbole. You have yet to post a single fact.



I like The Muppets. I grew up on them. I own The Muppet Movie on DVD. I have seen one Muppet movie in the theater. That was Muppet Christmas Carol which I only went to because my parents asked me to take my younger siblings. So fanatic? Probably not by most people's standards.

You however, are a Muppet hater on a grand scale. Not that I am telling you anything everyone here doesn't already know. One of us has proven themselves to be completely incapable of being objective and it's not me.

Me? I fully admit Muppets Most Wanted was not a success at the box office. I'm not spinning anything. You? You're using every trick in jt's arsenal. Yikes!







Yes. Disney miscalculated. They expected to build upon the success of the first movie. They thought that the second one would crack the $100 million mark. Otherwise, they wouldn't have spent $50 million on it. They spent more on the sequel then they did on the first one. That was unrealistic as I pointed out.

A reasonable person would have looked at the history of the Muppets and realized that $100 million dollars was unrealistic. They shouldn't have spent that much. They should have spent less on a sequel, not more.



No, obviously they are not. I'm sure they are very disappointed in the movie's performance. That's what makes it a disappointment.



Really trying to get some mileage out of that. How do you think it's working out for you so far? You think you have convinced anyone?



It's funny you should bring that up. Let's look at that in detail, shall we?

The previous week, Happy Feet Two opened up against Twilight and got steamrolled. The following week, The Muppets opened and became the family movie of choice for the Thanksgiving season. This year, The Muppets Most Wanted got the Happy Feet Two slot and Mr. Peabody & Sherman got the winning release date.

Facts are fun.



Not worth a rebuttal because obviously you don't have one.

I'm not comparing the two movies in terms of quality. But history is filled with movies that were not successful in their theatrical run but went on to be profitable. Anyone who tells you a movie will never make a profit (as you did) knows nothing about movies. Or will say anything to make a point whether it can be backed up or not. Which guy do you prefer to be?



Except obviously it is not the end of the story.

There is still income to be made. In the long run, most movies are profitable. Odds are, Muppets Most Wanted will eventually turn a profit. Not one that will make Disney happy. But it will almost certainly get into the black eventually. It will run on cable for decades. It will still be making Disney money after you and I are gone. Not much, but some.

Can't wait to see which word or phrase you fixate on next in your desperate spinning. Have fun and don't get dizzy.

Dude, you put so much spin in the above (tedious) analysis, you probably used a Spirograph instead of a keyboard. But just for fun (and this IS fun; keep it up): you're saying that the Muppet Movie 2's abysmal performance is Disney's fault because it spent too much on it. And that Disney should have realized it was spending too much money. Because, given the Muppets' box-office history, if one Muppet movie somehow manages to turn a profit, the one following it will bomb. Wow, with that track record, it's incredible that Disney bought the puppets in the first place. What a shame that Disney didn't know! Too bad you weren't there when the sale was being discussed. Your sage analysis and deep knowledge of hand puppet history might have prevented the sale from going through, and Disney would have saved itself a ton of money, and this site would have saved a ton of bandwidth because you wouldn't be spending pages and pages splitting semantic hairs over the difference between the terms "disappointment" and "flop". Man, you kill me. Even when a nerd site like Collider calls the film a flop, you keep insisting NO, it's a "disappointment", and there's a DIFFERENCE dammit! And you talk about ME fixating on a word? Oh the irony. Frickin' hilarious.

And then you babble some nonsense about the film's scheduling and that it's Disney's fault too. Even though the first puppet film went up against a Twilight movie AND two animated movies (one a Christmas movie and the other a sequel to a very successful movie) and yet it somehow didn't flop, at least not on the first weekend. (It dropped like a rock on the second weekend, but at least it made a little noise before it sputtered out.) Now, why wouldn't Disney assume, given that performance, that the Muppet sequel would do fine if it were released two weeks after a cartoon movie based on another dated franchise? Or against a Twilight-wannabe? It was, after all, doing what you say it didn't - basing its decisions on past Muppet movie history. Irony, The Sequel!

I don't hate the Muppets. They are insignificant in my overall worldview. What I hate is that Disney bought them. I also hate that Disney has bought other stuff like Star Wars and Marvel. Because the fatheads running Disney think it needs that junk in order to compete. Because it's less risky and more cost-efficient (they think) to buy known properties (or "brands", as asshat Iger likes to put it) than to create new product. And then a Muppet movie flops and the Disney-created movie "Frozen" blows that theory out of the water. Irony, the Trilogy!

What's really funny about all this is the attitude of you Muppet defenders. You have this solemn belief that if people don't share your reverence for talking gloves, there's something wrong with THEM. "If you don't like the Muppets, there's something wrong with you!" and "If you don't like the Muppets, you have no soul". etc. You're worse than Bronies. They don't seem to go around hating on people because they don't like cartoon ponies. They also seem to have a sense of humor about their obsession. Something you could stand to learn.

FACT: The Muppet sequel cost over 50 million to make. FACT: with just about all the box-office take in, including foreign markets, it's made only 70 million, and as it stands, there is NO way it will ever be profitable. It would have to somehow take in another 35 million just to break even. No way the DVD sales can make up for it. Muppet merchandising sales are crap, which is why you see so little of it around anywhere, so there will be no help coming from that. It's simple math, dude. You still watch Sesame Street, right? :0 Don't they teach simple math on that show?

 

[Matt_Black]

You're worse than Bronies. They don't seem to go around hating on people because they don't like cartoon ponies. They also seem to have a sense of humor about their obsession.

Clearly, you have different experiences with Bronies than I do.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Clearly, you have different experiences with Bronies than I do.

I'm no expert, but I've visited a couple of their fan sites, out of curiosity. And while some of the Bronies are creepy, and some are WAY creepy, most of them seem to be pretty good folk.

 

[Matt_Black]

I'm no expert, but I've visited a couple of their fan sites, out of curiosity. And while some of the Bronies are creepy, and some are WAY creepy, most of them seem to be pretty good folk.

And some bronies ganged up on me on another internet forum to bully me about an issue unrelated to MLP. I have a deservedly low opinion of them.

 

[Magenta Panther]

And some bronies ganged up on me on another internet forum to bully me about an issue unrelated to MLP. I have a deservedly low opinion of them.

I haven't had that experience, because I've never talked to any of them online. But I suppose that kind of unfortunate stuff happens everywhere on the 'net.

 

[Matt_Black]

I haven't had that experience, because I've never talked to any of them online. But I suppose that kind of unfortunate stuff happens everywhere on the 'net.

Yeah, well, I think that if a group of people are fans of a show subtitled "Friendship is Magic", then maybe they ought to try harder to hold themselves to the values the show espouses. They don't, which is both a failure of their moral character and the show's ability to teach lessons.

 

[acishere]

Yeah, well, I think that if a group of people are fans of a show subtitled "Friendship is Magic", then maybe they ought to try harder to hold themselves to the values the show espouses. They don't, which is both a failure of their moral character and the show's ability to teach lessons.

If what Reddit told me is true, that isn't what they like about it...