jt04
Well-Known Member
That's someone who is responding based on emotion and not facts. It works both ways.
You want to hear the interesting thing. I found the OP's admission AFTER my rant.
#vindicationland
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Surprise, surprise! The Nutcracker movie stinks.
- Thread starter RobbinsDad
- Start date
You want to hear the interesting thing. I found the OP's admission AFTER my rant.
#vindicationland
So, a net loss to the studio for it's theatrical window of only $133 million.
Note that the critics' and audience score is still bad. G-Force bad.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Notabomb.
I personally think this thread was purely created to troll the forum or buttress a false meme. It should have been deleted day 1. And the OP given a warning.
IMO of course.
You're now obsessed with the bad intentions of the OP as if you can prove the OP has bad intentions, all the evidence that this is a bomb will go away.
Shall I start a new, non-trolly thread where I say Nutcracker is a bomb based on evidence and not ill will? Will that satisfy you?
jt04
Well-Known Member
This really isn't a subject I care about.
Seeing memes become extinct on the internet because people refuse to play along is.
As to your first point, yes, you do care by your belligerence.
As for your second, you're not making any sense.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Belligerent? Having a difference of opinion is not belligerence. If you believe it is that would explain your confusion.
You posted several posts against the OP when only one would have done the trick. You're manically obsessed with proving, whether against the OP with an ad hominem attack or against me with ignoring data that Nutcracker didn't bomb. If having a difference of opinion is OK with you, you haven't shown it by your insistence.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Just waiting for facts to prove it was an opinion and not a false meme. I guess you or the OP could provide data on what constitutes a movie bombing or one that stinks. And then we can build on that foundation.
Surely you should find the data for them. You are always insistent that people find the data to support your claims
jt04
Well-Known Member
I am not the one claiming the movie bombed.
I'm claiming it lost money for the studio. I have evidence for that being industry insiders who let us know how the financing of movies work.
I'm claiming it was judged as being very bad with evidence from critic and audience aggregator sites.
If the overwhelming majority of critics hated it, if an audience primed to like a genre film gave it low scores, and if a big budget Disney movie can't even break even in its theatrical window... isn't a bomb. I don't know what it. Words stop having meaning because you want to believe the opposite being true in a fugue of manic optimism.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Once again the OP is clearly trolling as is his claim which then led to knee-jerk responses claiming the movie bombed etc etc. I'm not the one being manic although I am sure it seems that way from the perspective of anyone who drank the meme kool aid served up by the OP and a few followers.
And once again, when faced with evidence you can't wish away, you think attacking the OP's motivation in an ad hominem attack makes his point go away. It doesn't if it's based on factual evidence, which it is.
You know I'm not a hater who has drank (drunk? stupid irregular participles!) the "meme kool aid", I'm often accused of being a pixie duster. But reality is reality. Bad ratings from critics. Bad ratings from the audience. Lackluster Box Office leading to a net loss in the theatrical window. It's a bomb. And attacking the OP's motivation doesn't change that.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Over 50 fresh reviews on RT. But I guess your subjective opinion counts more somehow.
Until you quantify what the difference between a movie bombing or one underperforming is, then I am afraid we are at an impasse.
And just twice as much Rotten reviews.
What you just did is cherry pick data.
I don't know how I would be able to quantify what a bomb is with you when you wouldn't even look at all the data.
Speaking of John Carter, since 2000, here are the big bombs (as defined as a big net loss in their theatrical window)....
And here are the successes...
Disney Studios has had more movies with a net loss of over $100 million than a net profit of over $100 million. Since 2000, the average net loss of Disney Studios movies is $6 million.
Small enough to be made up for with post-theatrical window sales, but, think about that. The average Disney Studios movie looses money in its theatrical window.
I keep mentioning the loss as from it's theatrical window. By that measure, Nutcracker will throw a huge net loss in that window. You can wish and hope it will make up that loss in the digital windows... but where's you're evidence of that? The B+ CineScore is low and indicates almost no 'legs' for a movie.
There's also the majority negative and low reviews. Moving into digital won't make people like it better. Nutcracker is a genre film. People who like the genre went to see it. They weren't impressed. It's doubtful a wider general audience is going to like it better.