Ton Newton - Out

[BlakeW39]

You cannot say, “The source is garbage, but I’m going with it it because I like the numbers.”

No, but you can say "the source is untrustworthy, but its numbers are verifiably correct and therefore the source presenting them doesn't actually matter"

Saying, "this source is garbage so its numbers don't matter" is a rhetorical fallacy. Tip— address the content of your opponents arguments rather than their personal character or authority on the matter. I don't like Valiant, and he's certainly a biased source, but that has nothing to do with the numbers and arguments he is presenting. To invalidate any argument he makes simply on the basis that he is untrustworthy is, in fact, not a correct way to argue.

If his numbers are wrong, say that. Pulling up a screenshot of his other YouTube videos to invalidate whatever he says isn't the correct way to invent a counterargument.

 

[Chi84]

No, but you can say "the source is untrustworthy, but its numbers are verifiably correct and therefore the source presenting them doesn't actually matter"

Saying, "this source is garbage so its numbers don't matter" is a rhetorical fallacy. Tip— address the content of your opponents arguments rather than their personal character or authority on the matter. I don't like Valiant, and he's certainly a biased source, but that has nothing to do with the numbers and arguments he is presenting. To invalidate any argument he makes simply on the basis that he is untrustworthy is, in fact, not a correct way to argue.

If his numbers are wrong, say that. Pulling up a screenshot of his other YouTube videos to invalidate whatever he says isn't the correct way to invent a counterargument.

That’s what happens when a source gets a reputation as garbage or biased. People don’t want to support it by clicking on it to see whether this one time is different.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That’s what happens when a source gets a reputation as garbage or biased. People don’t want to support it by clicking on it to see whether this one time is different.

Also, the claim “the numbers aren’t biased,” is one of the most common mistakes in choosing sources. Numbers can be cherry-picked and framed in ways to give any number of different impressions. What’s more, if you don’t trust a source, you’re going to have to go back and check the source they cite for each number.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Are we still disputing the math? Either way, Disney has been failing in movie production the last several years vs in the past. This is due to several reasons imo

 

[Ayla]

That’s what happens when a source gets a reputation as garbage or biased. People don’t want to support it by clicking on it to see whether this one time is different.

Yeah. I rarely click on youtube videos linked here, even that fastpass one that gets posted all the time.

 

[BlakeW39]

That’s what happens when a source gets a reputation as garbage or biased. People don’t want to support it by clicking on it to see whether this one time is different.

Also, the claim “the numbers aren’t biased,” is one of the most common mistakes in choosing sources. Numbers can be cherry-picked and framed in ways to give any number of different impressions. What’s more, if you don’t trust a source, you’re going to have to go back and check the source they cite for each number.

It's fine to avoid a source, but ad hominems aren't counter arguments. Whether we feel Valiant is credible or not has no bearing on the specific argument he is making.

 

[Chi84]

It's fine to avoid a source, but ad hominems aren't counter arguments. Whether we feel Valiant is credible or not has no bearing on the specific argument he is making.

I think you may be talking about accuracy or correctness as opposed to credibility. Once you mislead someone, that person will accord you less credibility. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The person of interest is biased *and* got the math wrong because he cherry unpicked Avatar 2, which just shows his bias.

Using the rule of thumb formula, Disney movies lost close to a half a billion dollars in the past year, not close to a full billion.

See... this shilly pixie duster is admitting that big loss.

A loss in the theatrical window. For Disney, they have the opportunity, more so than other studios, to wring more revenue out of their movies than other studios. In the end, most movies at least break even and that half a billion loss isn't really a half a billion loss to the company over time. Just in the theatrical window. So, there is no imminent collapse of the company on the horizon... a narrative which the biased guy and some others on this forum are pushing.

The rule of thumb is admittedly (by me, over and over again) not exact. It's just a rule of thumb. But it helps to compare one movie to another by applying the same formula equally and not trying to fudge it to fit a narrative.

Besides the financial 'floppiness' of some movies, there is also the critical floppiness... or praise. There are much fewer Disney movies 'bombing' critically than financially. Satisfaction with Disney content remains high. The false narrative that two or three poorly reviewed movies means the general public is turning on Disney (for political/cultural reasons) is indeed false.

But those with a certain bias want to take the financial loss of 6 movies and bundle it with the critical loss of 2 movies and make it seem that not only will Disney collapse financially, but the whole world has turned against them.

There's your bias.

Clearly laid out in a table of clickbait thumbnails.

 

[BlakeW39]

I think you may be talking about accuracy or correctness as opposed to credibility. Once you mislead someone, that person will accord you less credibility. See The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

I am saying credibility doesn't necessarily have any bearing on accuracy or correctness. Using the credibility of a source to infer its correctness is rhetorically incorrect. You may accord a source less credibility based on if they have been trustworthy in the past, but a source can be untrustworthy and still correct on a certain issue.

So, there is no imminent collapse of the company on the horizon... a narrative which the biased guy and some others on this forum are pushing.

The rule of thumb is admittedly (by me, over and over again) not exact. It's just a rule of thumb. But it helps to compare one movie to another by applying the same formula equally and not trying to fudge it to fit a narrative.

Besides the financial 'floppiness' of some movies, there is also the critical floppiness... or praise. There are much fewer Disney movies 'bombing' critically than financially. Satisfaction with Disney content remains high. The false narrative that two or three poorly reviewed movies means the general public is turning on Disney (for political/cultural reasons) is indeed false.

But those with a certain bias want to take the financial loss of 6 movies and bundle it with the critical loss of 2 movies and make it seem that not only will Disney collapse financially, but the whole world has turned against them.

There's your bias.

Clearly laid out in a table of clickbait thumbnails.

Yes it's very unlikely Disney will collapse any time soon. But I question your second point. Is your opinion that audiences aren't decreasingly satisfied with Disney's films? Because while I haven't done the math, a quick glance shows that the more recent Disney films have lower metacritic scores (both by critics and especially by general audiences) than the ones before, on average.

 

[CaptainMickey]

I think a lot of people leave Avatar out of the discussion because Disney didn't have anything to do with it. It was all Lightstorm and James Cameron. Disney purchased Fox, so they get the movies and the profits from it, but had zero creative input.

Now Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm were all juggernauts when Disney purchased them. Disney has had time to take creative control over all those franchises. A big question is are all of those better off today then when Disney purchased them? Is Disney taking them in the right direction? Are they really making the best, broadest movies they could and maximizing the earning potential for each release? It doesn't look like that's close to being achieved, so people will debate. If you don't want to admit Disney is in a creative rut right now, an easy out is to blame other stuff, like marketing and fuzzy numbers.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think a lot of people leave Avatar out of the discussion because Disney didn't have anything to do with it. It was all Lightstorm and James Cameron. Disney purchased Fox, so they get the movies and the profits from it, but had zero creative input.

I can see not crediting Disney for Avatar.

But... as you said, they still get the profits. So, that billion dollar loser chart is wrong.

And... Even before Disney bought Fox, Disney recognized the appeal of Avatar and spent big piles of cash to create an Avatar Land. And they greenlighted Avatar 2 (and 3-5).

But this is Disney's M.O., namely, acquiring property. They 'acquired' all the public domain fairy tales, they acquired through licensing and purchase Poppins, Pooh, Pan, and a bunch of other books. And they purchased Marvel and LucasFilm and Pixar.

There's very little original Disney IP that is strongly associated with Disney and wildly popular compared to all the other wildly popular IP they 'acquired.'

 

[MisterPenguin]

Is your opinion that audiences aren't decreasingly satisfied with Disney's films?

That question assumes that people are decreasingly satisfied with Disney films. Your data for that?

Some of the films that didn't turn a profit still got good critical and audience ratings.

The ones that went straight to D+ and didn't have a chance to make a profit or loss in theaters still got great ratings. But those wanting to create a narrative that everything is failing ignore those films, or keep lumping them in with movies that failed at the box office, when they were never actually widely released to fail or succeed.

Two or three failures are not indicative of a trend, especially when there are four or five that are well received (even if they didn't make a profit).

A lot of the "not making a profit" has more to do with bloating budgets. These movies can sill make half a billion, be the fourth biggest movie of the year, and still lose money --- in the theatrical window.

 

[ElvisMickey]

The “analyst” is YouTuber “Valiant Renegade” and the story is featured on Newsmax.

Come on.

Step up?

 

[ElvisMickey]

Are we still disputing the math? Either way, Disney has been failing in movie production the last several years vs in the past. This is due to several reasons imo

Exactly this. The apologists are missing the point.

 

[Prince-1]

Step up?

The person from YouTube is slightly more credible.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The person from YouTube is slightly more credible.

It’s all the same incredibly efficient noise network.

 

[GhostHost1000]

It’s all the same incredibly efficient noise network.

Stating the fact that Disney movies aren’t doing well

 

[Prince-1]

It’s all the same incredibly efficient noise network.

Yes it is.

 

[Trauma]

Stating the fact that Disney movies aren’t doing well

It’s an argument that goes on an endless loop.

The facts are what they are.

The dusters will rely on ad hominem attacks to muddy the waters.

There is no such thing anymore as an unbiased source. No matter what content you post someone can easily and correctly say “that source is biased”.

That is why the facts matter.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Stating the fact that Disney movies aren’t doing well

Cycling some guy on YouTube through multiple different outlets in multiple different media, each amplifying the other.

So if this is a Disney problem, what other studios output do you want?