- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:18 pm to Roaad
quote:
I really liked Firefly. Most people who watched it loved it. But not enough watched it, so it failed.
Firefly absolutely didnt fail. It was a really good show and they are now making an animated show.
quote:
Not enough people thought it was good enough to spend time and money on it
Last I checked, that matters
Why would people that didnt see the movie's opinion matter?
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:22 pm to sgallo3
quote:
Firefly absolutely didnt fail.
quote:
Why would people that didnt see the movie's opinion matter?
If a movie is going to be a financial failure, isn't it important to know WHY people didn't go see it?
I would think their opinion becomes vital, at that point, unless financial failure is the goal.
Or is that just something anti-wokes, or whatever you guys call them, care about?
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:25 pm to Roaad
Whats a financial failure? They spent more making the show than they did on the movie and that returned $0 according to your math.
The movie has already made $170 million more in 1 week than the show did in 3 seasons.
The movie has already made $170 million more in 1 week than the show did in 3 seasons.
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:32 pm to sgallo3
quote:Revenue less than your expenses
What is a financial failure
quote:Ah, I see you think you have found a point, but I already educated you on this one in the other thread
They spent more making the show than they did on the movie and that returned $0 according to your math.
quote:Jesus, man
The movie has already made $170 million more in 1 week than the show did in 3 seasons.
Stop, for your sake
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:35 pm to Roaad
quote:
Ah, I see you think you have found a point, but I already educated you on this one in the other thread
Unless you time traveled forward my post in this thread was 4 minutes before your post....
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:40 pm to sgallo3
quote:So?
Unless you time traveled forward my post in this thread was 4 minutes before your post....
Just means you rapid fired the same bad point twice?
Not sure that's a flex
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:52 pm to sgallo3
quote:
you think people didnt like it then you just live in your own world where facts arent relevant. The review thread is full of positive reviews.
People say the exact same thing about it over and over, people that don’t care about the IP say it’s “fun” and the kids enjoyed it.
And that it doesn’t have a plot. A Star Wars movie, without a plot. No meaning.
quote:
what’s a financial failure? The movie has already made $170 million more in 1 week than the show did in 3 seasons.
This movie is on track to lose $200 million and maybe even $300 million dollars, dude.
Do you have a ton of Disney stock or something? I don’t understand what compels you to defend this failure
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:55 pm to Proximo
quote:
This movie is on track to lose $200 million and maybe even $300 million dollars, dude.
quote:
Do you have a ton of Disney stock or something? I don’t understand what compels you
You are the one that keeps bringing up how much it is gonna make or lose, do you own disney stock or something?
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:56 pm to sgallo3
Let’s tease out why you’re laughing at those figures.
New York Times published break even point of $600 million. This movie is going to gross $350 million if it’s lucky
What’s funny again?
New York Times published break even point of $600 million. This movie is going to gross $350 million if it’s lucky
What’s funny again?
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:56 pm to Proximo
quote:
New York Times published break even point of $600 million.
No they didn't.
They posted production and marketing to be $300 million. You quoted that. You determined that meant they needed to make $600 million to break even.
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:57 pm to Proximo
quote:He is the self-proclaimed Voice of the Silent Majority®
Do you have a ton of Disney stock or something?
But that Silent Majority® didn't care enough to watch this movie. . .so here we are
This post was edited on 5/30/26 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 5/30/26 at 2:59 pm to sgallo3
You’re right, they published $300 million budget (conservative), which if you use the standard 2.5 multiplier would mean a break even of $750 million
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:01 pm to Proximo
quote:
You’re right, they published $300 million budget (conservative), which if you use the standard 2.5 multiplier would mean a break even of $750 million
The advertising was included in that $300 million in the new york times article you linked.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:03 pm to Proximo
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:04 pm to Roaad
Id agree it needs to make at minimum $500 million to make its money back if you only count theatrical revenue and assume the movies value to Disney after it leaves theaters is $0.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:04 pm to sgallo3
and there is another article on that park place that says the talent costs weren’t included in the published $166 million budget NYT used. I believe related to California law but could be wrong, so anyway it was even more than $300mm.
Even using the conservative figures this movie is going to lose a lot of money because Disney alienated their audience. Even if they hadn’t, they still can’t make a meaningful movie
Even using the conservative figures this movie is going to lose a lot of money because Disney alienated their audience. Even if they hadn’t, they still can’t make a meaningful movie
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:05 pm to sgallo3
quote:550 is the pretty settled on number
Id agree it needs to make at minimum $500 million to make its money back if you only count theatrical revenue and assume the movies value to Disney after it leaves theaters is $0.
And also all I have been saying
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:14 pm to Roaad
Then you should agree with me that its impossible for Proximos analysis to be correct
Its already gonna be over $200 million by tomorrow. It cant lose $300 million because its obviously very conservatively worth $100+ million for Disney just for streaming, merch, and brand recognition/engagement shite.
And before you argue with that, keep in mind companies pay $10 million for a 30 second super bowl ad these days.
quote:.
This movie is on track to lose $200 million and maybe even $300 million dollars, dude.
Its already gonna be over $200 million by tomorrow. It cant lose $300 million because its obviously very conservatively worth $100+ million for Disney just for streaming, merch, and brand recognition/engagement shite.
And before you argue with that, keep in mind companies pay $10 million for a 30 second super bowl ad these days.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 3:15 pm to Roaad
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Amid the total weekend domination of “Backrooms” ($90M) and “Obsession” ($30M), there’s the little-reported freefall of “The Mandalorian and Grogu,” which is eyeing a $23M second weekend. That’s a 72% drop. It’s over for this film, which will finish well below franchise expectations domestically.
It isn’t going to hit Solo’s $390 million box office, tracking showing a -72% drop
Lucky if it gets to $350mm
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News