Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
... LastLast
  1. #121
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Of all those...Solo is the only one that didn't really make any money for Disney. Plus there's the Mandalorian on D+. And then you gotta consider merchandise, video games, etc. Also, they didn't just get Star Wars. They got Lucasfilm and everything included in that. That means all the IP's. That means Industrial Lights and Magic. You're fucking kidding yourself if you think Disney isn't making bank on Star Wars.
    Like, do I own any of the sequel trilogy on Blu-Ray? Nope. Not even the films I like. See above comment about streaming; why bother when I have Disney+ in 4k that I can play on basically any platform, not just ones compatible with the discs?

    What I do have are multiple big Lego kits, including the Razorcrest, as part of my growing Lego collection. I know Disney's getting some kind of kickback on that merch, some kind of licensing agreement. What percentage? No clue! But it's more than I ever bought during the pre-Disney era.

    No, I don't have the big Falcon. That thing's a monster and it's out of my price range right now.


  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Like, do I own any of the sequel trilogy on Blu-Ray? Nope. Not even the films I like. See above comment about streaming; why bother when I have Disney+ in 4k that I can play on basically any platform, not just ones compatible with the discs?

    What I do have are multiple big Lego kits, including the Razorcrest, as part of my growing Lego collection. I know Disney's getting some kind of kickback on that merch, some kind of licensing agreement. What percentage? No clue! But it's more than I ever bought during the pre-Disney era.

    No, I don't have the big Falcon. That thing's a monster and it's out of my price range right now.
    Also, There's a ton of cross-brand things they can do now. Visual and Audio effects for Disney movies are done by ILM and Skywalker Sound...so essentially they are paying themselves to provide effects for their own movies. Marvel publishes Star Wars Comics now...so they get all that coming in.

    Yeah, the very concept that Disney's 4 billion dollar purchase of LucasArts hasn't been paying expected dividends is fucking ludicrous. It's the goddamn Golden Goose.

    Reportedly, Disney had made back their investment in 2018...before Rise of Skywalker was even released.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-...nvestment.html
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2021-07-28 at 10:07 PM.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Visual and Audio effects for Disney movies are done by ILM and Skywalker Sound...so essentially they are paying themselves to provide effects for their own movies.
    You miss the opportunity cost. Before ILM do special effects for (insert random movie company) and is payed 25 million for the work, and ILM expence are 20 million, thats a proffit of 5 million.

    Now ILM do special effectes for a Disney movie, ILM have a budget of 20 million, and have a expence of 20 million, ILM profit is now 0.
    The Disney movie is now 5 million cheaper, but ILM have reduced its profit by 5 million, its a zero sum game.

    Disney owned ILM do only allow Disney to have better controll (that can led to a more efficient production, hence make it cheaper, but its not granted)

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Fantomen View Post
    You miss the opportunity cost. Before ILM do special effects for (insert random movie company) and is payed 25 million for the work, and ILM expence are 20 million, thats a proffit of 5 million.

    Now ILM do special effectes for a Disney movie, ILM have a budget of 20 million, and have a expence of 20 million, ILM profit is now 0.
    The Disney movie is now 5 million cheaper, but ILM have reduced its profit by 5 million, its a zero sum game.

    Disney owned ILM do only allow Disney to have better controll (that can led to a more efficient production, hence make it cheaper, but its not granted)
    It's not automatically cheaper, no...but the money isn't going into a competitors pockets, either. All the money stays in the House of Mouse.

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Oh dear. You think there weren’t older fans of Saturday morning cartoons? I bet you think only kids read comics back then too.
    He-Man and She-Ra were borderline unwatchable on the 80s. Even nostalgia can barely put a shine on those turds.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    He-Man and She-Ra were borderline unwatchable on the 80s. Even nostalgia can barely put a shine on those turds.
    What else were stoners supposed to watch when they waked and baked? It’s not like they had streaming or even VCRs for the most part.

  7. #127
    IMHO we're talking about multiple sets of moving goalposts.

    1. Movies and books generally reflect the common culture at the time.
    2. Humor and drama is always changing.
    3. We, the audience, are changing. There are big changes like from a teenager to adult, and from year to year.

    Isn't "bad memory" the quick definition of nostalgia?

  8. #128
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    13,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Did you miss the part where two of her best friends had just died as she discovered they and the rest of the people closest to her had been keeping a massive secret from her? The series does a pretty good job of explaining her statebof mind when she meets with Adam in the champion's paradise.
    and she got pissed about the secret, and not about the death of her best friends?

    she can't realise the secret was necessary and instead, ignore the deaths and bitch about the secret, like a revolted teen? come on, pretty sure she isn't 18, so this angry teen characterization throw me off hard when i know she is mroe than that.

    What?
    they had downplay on he-man and prince adam so he don't get the spotlight of her, obviously, cause a lot of people went to the series, expecting and wanting to see he-man, because is what they sold, and what most people want to see, him beating people

    I'm guessing you didn't watch the original series much.
    Dude, where i live, there was only that to watch, that and thundercats, we didn't get much variety like people in USA

    He-Man has a similar problem to Superman, he's too powerful and once he shows up there's pretty much no tension any more because he can just punch or throw rocks at the problem until it stops being a problem. Most of the episodes that have any sort of stakes usually revolve around keeping He-Man out of the action, he's really far away or Adam lost his sword or has to eat a big dinner or something.
    He didn't had that problem that much no, he was not "too powerful", but his powers obviously variety on the plot

    As a series with a progressive story it makes sense they won't just introduce He-Man early and have him punch Skeletor and throwing rocks for the next 7 episodes.
    But no one rly just want that, but right away kill and shit his character, despite the hype and marketing? that was a low blow.

    Besides exploring Eternia post-He-man and Skeletor was brilliant. Seeing how the villains scattered and their attitudes to each other was great, especially Tri-Klops and Whiplash blaming magic for their previous issues and making the Cult Mechanicus.
    Of course it was good idea, i even said it was a good move, and didn't said the series was all bad.

    But, they had three problems i, personally can't ignore. One, you can build something new without the need to be on top of the bones of the old. They didn't had to shit on the main guy to give focus to others, other series did that fine. Two, The characterization of some characters was bad and didn't reflect the original, Teela to me was especially bad acting like an angry teen when i know she is not. Three, the marketing problem, They heavy featured he-man, they hyped him, they said it was his series, but it was bait and switch, if they had said, from the beginning, what it was about, then everyone was going to be more open.

    The excuse at the moment is because its just the first part, but if the second part does not focus on he-man/adam, then it will be a big flop for what it was supposed to be, imo.
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2021-07-29 at 11:04 PM.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    He-Man and She-Ra were borderline unwatchable on the 80s. Even nostalgia can barely put a shine on those turds.
    So why make a sequeal to somthing that was a turd?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    All the money stays in the House of Mouse.
    You still missing the opportunity cost, imagen you did not buy ILM, and you get the "Lucas packet" 100 million cheaper. You can still hire ILM for your movies, and the total cost in the end for the movie is the same. But you have 100 million you can go and invest in somthing else like goverment bonds and make more money.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Fantomen View Post
    So why make a sequeal to somthing that was a turd?
    Nostalgia.

    Nostalgia brings the parents in, then they make it new and updated for their kids. In 30 years, they'll think the new version of He-Man which is just the Adam meme with flashing light behind it is dumb for their kids.

    IDK, when I was a kid, we made fun of our parents for saying "Back in my day," but in terms of reboots and stuff like that, it seems like all of my generation is stuck with this tired, bored mindset of "it was better back then," which is rarely the case. I loved He-Man, Transformers, etc back in the day (even though as a young immigrant kid even then I couldn't get into the jingoistic G.I. Joe), but they are objectively not good TV, looking back at it now.

  11. #131
    [QUOTE=Egomaniac;53310305]
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post
    Disney has not recouped the initial 4 billion dollar investment.

    It's a 4 billion dollar investment. You don't make that back overnight...but still:

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2691925505/
    Force Awakens Box Office: 2 billion

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2708702721/
    Last Jedi Box Office: 1.3 Billion

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2557707777/
    Rogue One Box Office: 1 Billion

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/...ref_=bo_se_r_1
    Rise Of Skywalker Box Office: 1 Billion

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/...ref_=bo_se_r_2
    Solo Box Office: 400million

    Of all those...Solo is the only one that didn't really make any money for Disney. Plus there's the Mandalorian on D+. And then you gotta consider merchandise, video games, etc. Also, they didn't just get Star Wars. They got Lucasfilm and everything included in that. That means all the IP's. That means Industrial Lights and Magic. You're fucking kidding yourself if you think Disney isn't making bank on Star Wars.




    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Ca...ab=video-sales
    Captain Marvel Video Sales:

    Domestic: 67 million

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/An...ab=video-sales
    Antman and the Wasp Video sales

    Domestic: 50 million

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Do...6)#tab=summary
    Doctor Strange Video Sales:

    Domestic 58 Million

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sp...ng#tab=summary
    Spider-Man Homecoming Video Sales

    Domestic: 70 million

    That's Captain Marvel's video sales compared to two other marvel films that it outperformed on video sales and one that it came pretty close to meeting. Not the highest numbers sure...but not "bad" by any means.
    Ah, again someone mistakes the total box office with pure profit for Disney. I do have to correct at least 1 thread per year about that:
    boxofficemojo.com, back on jan 31 2020.
    We discussed the missunderstood GROS and NET numbers back then in the Obi_Wan Kenob thread.
    User PACOX back then gave us the numbers, and we showed him how little was left after you corrected the numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Disney SW by the numbers

    TFA - $936,662,225 (domestic), $1,131,561,399 (international), $2,068,223,624 (worldwide)
    TLJ - $620,181,382 + $712,358,507, = $1,332,539,889
    TROS - $503,458,989 + $545,400,163 = $1,048,859,152

    Rogue One - $532,177,324 + $523,879,949 = $1,056,057,273
    Solo - $213,767,512 + $179,157,295 = $392,924,807

    Total gross TD: $5,898,604,745
    Cost of acquisition: $4.05 billion
    Total gross-budget: $4,497,184,891

    All figures from boxofficemojo.com

    Great, now let's take the gross and turn it into the net, the REALLY important part. Disney WAS in the strong position that they got 60% of domestic and 40% of international earnings, the rest went to the cinemas and distributors:

    Total domestic for all movies: 2.806.247.432 *0,6 = 1.683.748.459,20 $
    Total foreign for all movies: 3.092.357.313 *0,4 = 1.236.942.925,20 $
    totals to: 2.920.691.384,40 $

    2. Those numbers are the box office earnings, the cost of production from those movies has yet to be deducted. So it made even less then the 2,9 billion dollars in real profit.
    After calculating all the costs and earnings the IP has not remade the initial investment of 4 billion dollars from the movies. After 9 years, 5 movies, and several TV/streaming shows.

    And the toy sales are still abysmal because they thought it wise to dismiss the old fans who made the IP so profitable. I have yet to find an official report from Disney were they report only the numbers for Star Wars toys, they always mix 'em up with Frozen (II) and other merch.

    Edit:
    And to, again, prove Endus wrong:

    Originally Posted by Rennadrel
    This lie is so obvious. You all used it when people shit on Star Wars, Ghostbusters 2016 and Birds of Prey. Can you not just accept that people dislike things in a lot larger numbers than those who like it instead of crying that people are intentionally being negative to artifically reduce audience scores? Just take the L and move on. Because you seem to think that your little echo chamber of people who like the garbage that Hollywood keeps crapping out speaks for the majority all the time, when in reality the people who care the most are the majority. And if you ever try to use critic scores to rationalize your bias, that's just sheer naivety on your part because we know that 90% of reviewers have some sort of bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, somehow, those products are financially successful anyway.

    Take the brigading of Captain Marvel, because Brie Larson made a couple comments in interviews that upset the manchildren. It still shows up really low in audience scores on review sites. Despite the quantifiable fact that it's one of the most-successful non-Avengers MCU films; https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisb...g-black-widow/

    It's not even that hard to tell if there's brigading going on; reviews will normally tend to form a bell curve, naturally, if the average is middling, or will be a curve up to a peak at 5 or 1 if it's legitimately great or terrible. When there's brigading, there'll be a huge spike of 1-star reviews, and then a normal bell curve above that in the 3-4-5 region somewhere.

    Imagine trying to deny that brigading occurs in movie audience reviews, in 2021.
    You claimed that here. Both BoP and GB2016 were not.
    Neither were the last Terminator Movie, or the attempt to reboot Charlies Angels.
    Last edited by segara82; 2021-07-30 at 03:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'm fine with a mafia. Of course, the mafia families often worked with independent third parties in order to maintain relations.

  12. #132
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,872
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post
    Edit:
    And to, again, prove Endus wrong:

    You claimed that here. Both BoP and GB2016 were not.
    Neither were the last Terminator Movie, or the attempt to reboot Charlies Angels.
    That's a pretty minor correction to be fluffing up as "proving me wrong".

    Their both made more revenue than they took to make. What cost them both was high marketing costs. This also gets us into Hollywood Accounting nonsense, but fine. My point still remains regarding the other films, including what I had to say there regarding Captain Marvel.


  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post

    Ah, again someone mistakes the total box office with pure profit for Disney. I do have to correct at least 1 thread per year about that:
    boxofficemojo.com, back on jan 31 2020.
    We discussed the missunderstood GROS and NET numbers back then in the Obi_Wan Kenob thread.
    User PACOX back then gave us the numbers, and we showed him how little was left after you corrected the numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Disney SW by the numbers
    I actually did not confuse Box Office Numbers. Nor did I suggest they made back the 4 Billion on Ticket Sales.

    I said that Disney made money from the movies. And, aside from Solo, They did. That one was admittedly a flop. It happens.

    And perhaps you missed this, but in a later post I added:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-...nvestment.html

    Reportedly, Even Solo flopping didn't stop Disney from making back their investment. Because the thing about Star Wars is that it isn't just the Box Office that they get their money from. It's Merchandise, Video Games, liscensing deals, etc.
    Last edited by Egomaniac; 2021-07-30 at 04:42 PM.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    Have we failed to move on from our childhood? Why do we connect so much with the media we grew up on and why can we not let it go? For whatever reasons we are upset about our nostalgia being 'ruined' or 'destroyed' why do we really care? I am really not that bothered personally, but it seems us 30+ year olds are really concerned about children's TV shows more than any other generation before us?
    The overwhelming majority of them were shit then and they're shit now, I can't possibly be the only one who recognized shit even as a child.
    Aside from that, what baffles me is seeing adults getting enthralled en masse by shows that are clearly aimed at little children and did not exist when said adults were kids, so nostalgia is out of the equation. Which leaves me slightly concerned and more than a bit disturbed, but to each his own.
    P.s. just to clarify, what I said goes for children's shows alone. Plenty of good animation came out before I was even born and still does to this day. As to other media, yes, I was disappointed by some sequels and remakes. Fantasia is better than Fantasia 2000, 1963's Lord of the Flies is better than the 1990 trainwreck, and 1982's The Thing was better than the 2011 version (which I don't remember being nigh-unwatchable, much unlike 1990's LotF). It goes both ways, some new stuff is better than the old stuff - in both cases though my reactions never went beyond a fleeting feeling of disappointment, even with titles I was looking forwards to. What really irks me is seeing current good stuff ruined midway through (if not downright binned due to Netflix's & co. brilliant renewal policies), though I guess that's another matter entirely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adolecent View Post
    I'm getting infracted by an American moderator on an American topic promoting/advocating weapons on a childrens forum, what else to expect on an American forum. I'm done here and i'm going to leave you one thing to remember:
    [extremely graphic picture of dead children]
    Hope you sleep well. With the lack of empathy the majority of you show i guess that won't be a problem. BB

  15. #135
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    13,016
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Nostalgia.
    usually, when you do something for nostalgia, you still use the old characters and try to resemble the old shows, not shit on it and do something new, that is obviously not going to work.

    It just way easier to try to build something you want/force your vision when the franchise is already established, rather than create your own. But it will confront with the old fans.

    And they were a good TV show back in the days, for the time, obviously, the parameters of quality are higher those days, for everything, food, games, is like wanting to shit on a ps1 game because we have xbox and ps5

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    The whole gatekeeping thing is really just a small amount of nerds. To be frank.
    Just like it's a small group of Vocal nerds who sit in here and post about this kind of stuff all day

  17. #137
    My nostalgia is polluted by the fumes of the dying Soviet Union and its socialist satellite countries, since I didn't grow up "in the west". When I go back to good childhood memories of Ninja Turtles, Star Wars, The Pirates of Dark Water or others I also inevitably remember the dark days of socialist regimes suffocating nations for generations.

    So our generation experiences can vary quite a bit and it can't be summed up with one overall description. But I don't get on a hate train by default when the entertainment industry capitalizes on old hits, though I call trash when it's trash or applaud when it's superb.

    I believe that when such old and beloved content is touched for new releases, it should be done with utmost respect and reverence to the original. Often they try to improve it by introducing changes and retcons to staples that made the originals great and often those changes seem to carry socials agendas that only sound good in passive agressive Twitter posts and don't have their own universal value that could stand as a classic through the years.

  18. #138
    Titan Val the Moofia Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    14,618
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post

    Ah, again someone mistakes the total box office with pure profit for Disney. I do have to correct at least 1 thread per year about that:
    boxofficemojo.com, back on jan 31 2020.
    We discussed the missunderstood GROS and NET numbers back then in the Obi_Wan Kenob thread.
    User PACOX back then gave us the numbers, and we showed him how little was left after you corrected the numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Disney SW by the numbers

    TFA - $936,662,225 (domestic), $1,131,561,399 (international), $2,068,223,624 (worldwide)
    TLJ - $620,181,382 + $712,358,507, = $1,332,539,889
    TROS - $503,458,989 + $545,400,163 = $1,048,859,152

    Rogue One - $532,177,324 + $523,879,949 = $1,056,057,273
    Solo - $213,767,512 + $179,157,295 = $392,924,807

    Total gross TD: $5,898,604,745
    Cost of acquisition: $4.05 billion
    Total gross-budget: $4,497,184,891

    All figures from boxofficemojo.com

    Great, now let's take the gross and turn it into the net, the REALLY important part. Disney WAS in the strong position that they got 60% of domestic and 40% of international earnings, the rest went to the cinemas and distributors:

    Total domestic for all movies: 2.806.247.432 *0,6 = 1.683.748.459,20 $
    Total foreign for all movies: 3.092.357.313 *0,4 = 1.236.942.925,20 $
    totals to: 2.920.691.384,40 $

    2. Those numbers are the box office earnings, the cost of production from those movies has yet to be deducted. So it made even less then the 2,9 billion dollars in real profit.
    After calculating all the costs and earnings the IP has not remade the initial investment of 4 billion dollars from the movies. After 9 years, 5 movies, and several TV/streaming shows.

    And the toy sales are still abysmal because they thought it wise to dismiss the old fans who made the IP so profitable. I have yet to find an official report from Disney were they report only the numbers for Star Wars toys, they always mix 'em up with Frozen (II) and other merch.

    Edit:
    And to, again, prove Endus wrong:

    Originally Posted by Rennadrel
    This lie is so obvious. You all used it when people shit on Star Wars, Ghostbusters 2016 and Birds of Prey. Can you not just accept that people dislike things in a lot larger numbers than those who like it instead of crying that people are intentionally being negative to artifically reduce audience scores? Just take the L and move on. Because you seem to think that your little echo chamber of people who like the garbage that Hollywood keeps crapping out speaks for the majority all the time, when in reality the people who care the most are the majority. And if you ever try to use critic scores to rationalize your bias, that's just sheer naivety on your part because we know that 90% of reviewers have some sort of bias.



    You claimed that here. Both BoP and GB2016 were not.
    Neither were the last Terminator Movie, or the attempt to reboot Charlies Angels.
    I have to wonder what exactly Star Wars is making most of its money from. It certainly isn't movies or toys, that's for sure. Is it from mobile games? And how many years of microtransactions will it take for Disney to recoup their investment?

    . - - - - - Come play MMO-C mafia with us! / Steam / MyAnimeList - - - - -

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I actually did not confuse Box Office Numbers. Nor did I suggest they made back the 4 Billion on Ticket Sales.

    I said that Disney made money from the movies. And, aside from Solo, They did. That one was admittedly a flop. It happens.

    And perhaps you missed this, but in a later post I added:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-...nvestment.html

    Reportedly, Even Solo flopping didn't stop Disney from making back their investment. Because the thing about Star Wars is that it isn't just the Box Office that they get their money from. It's Merchandise, Video Games, liscensing deals, etc.
    Yes, and the writer of that article made the usual mistake of taking the gross box office revenue and writing as if it was pure profit for Disney. Which, as the numbers i showed you, it is not. But who needs math and facts when good-sounding PR is needed?

    The numbers for Star Wars toys are so bad, that their revenue is added together with the Frozen merch, so to make the numbers look better. But i have not yet found a report from Disney in the last years showing the pure SW toys numbers. They claim that the numbers went up from last year, but still add them in with Frozen (II) merch. And since the Frozen IP manages to makes up to 25% of all merch sales ... it is IMO a very convenient spot to hide bad numbers.

    As for the merch and the other things: Disney gets 10%, 15% or, in some cases, even 30% of the profit- numbers vary by contract. I have not found reliable info on how big their cut is for Star Wars.
    The numbers from the Q1 FY 2021 however do not paint a rosy picture.
    https://www.investopedia.com/how-dis...-money-4799164

    @Endus: YOU claimed 'they were financially successful anyway'.
    only one of them was. The rest barely broke even , or were flops. If you want to set the bar of success so low as 'barely breaks even' than you and i have very different understandings of 'financially successful'.
    Or, you could admit that you were wrong, and that only 1 was a success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Val the Moofia Boss View Post
    I have to wonder what exactly Star Wars is making most of its money from. It certainly isn't movies or toys, that's for sure. Is it from mobile games? And how many years of microtransactions will it take for Disney to recoup their investment?
    Currently not much. While they do make some money with merch (Lego sets and relaunches of the original triology stuff) and the few games out there, it is pittance to the old numbers George got. Disney+ so far is still in the red, and if they really make all 11 shows the oversaturation will do more harm than good to the IP IMO.
    Last edited by segara82; 2021-07-31 at 09:51 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I'm fine with a mafia. Of course, the mafia families often worked with independent third parties in order to maintain relations.

  20. #140
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,872
    Quote Originally Posted by segara82 View Post
    @Endus: YOU claimed 'they were financially successful anyway'.
    only one of them was. The rest barely broke even , or were flops. If you want to set the bar of success so low as 'barely breaks even' than you and i have very different understandings of 'financially successful'.
    Or, you could admit that you were wrong, and that only 1 was a success.
    Of the 5 Star Wars films released, only one didn't make back it's costs; Solo. The rest were wildly successful and there really isn't any debate about that; even Rise of Skywalker pulled in North of a billion dollars at the box office.

    If you're expecting me to lie about that, you'll be a long time waiting. I already admitted to overstating regarding the other films, so I don't see where you think you're going with this.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •