Xavier5:


Bro, my reply was in response to your logic that billion dollar grossers equates high profit that's why I had to quote you in contradiction. Below is the statement from you.



Disney had a loss in it's third quarter despite having a revenue of $9b+ from six movies (excluding frozen 2, maleficent 2, star wars 9), that's huge. Blaming fox properties and the acquisition of Fox which occurred in March 2019 is ridiculous. Revenues from those movies should have covered up that loss but no it didn't, why? because they didn't make high profits to do so.

I know they're lots of factors to be considered when it comes to profit and loss ish in a company e.g Disney+, expenditures, tax, revenue from subsidiaries, acquisition of properties etc, that I know and understand but with a revenue of $9b+ from six movies, such shouldn't have occurred, the revenue should have covered up or made up for it but they couldn't because they didn't make high profits to do so.

But I'm happy that Disney were able to make Profits in the next quarter, besides Disney has a lot of hit and profitable franchises with them e.g MCU, Star wars, Avatar, Pirates of the Carribean, Frozen, Toy story, Ralph, Croods etc

But one thing we need to understand is that, billion dollar grossing or high grossing doesn't necessarily equate to high profit. When I personally discovered that, I stopped bothering myself on how high a movie grossed or if it grossed billion dollar to what profit did it make in terms of gross and net.

PS: I have no issue with Disney and Marvel, common, why should i? besides Spiderman is my 2nd favorite comic book character after Batman.

#Xavier.
#I_Am_A_DCian.

pu7pl3:

Xavier5:


Bro, my reply was in response to your logic that billion dollar grossers equates high profit that's why I had to quote you in contradiction. Below is the statement from you.



Disney had a loss in it's third quarter despite having a revenue of $9b+ from six movies (excluding frozen 2, maleficent 2, star wars 9), that's huge. Blaming fox properties and the acquisition of Fox which occurred in March 2019 is ridiculous. Revenues from those movies should have covered up that loss but no it didn't, why? because they didn't make high profits to do so.

I know they're lots of factors to be considered when it comes to profit and loss ish in a company e.g Disney+, expenditures, tax, revenue from subsidiaries, acquisition of properties etc, that I know and understand but with a revenue of $9b+ from six movies, such shouldn't have occurred, the revenue should have covered up or made up for it but they couldn't because they didn't make high profits to do so.

But I'm happy that Disney were able to make Profits in the next quarter, besides Disney has a lot of hit and profitable franchises with them e.g MCU, Star wars, Avatar, Pirates of the Carribean, Frozen, Toy story, Ralph, Croods etc

But one thing we need to understand is that, billion dollar grossing or high grossing doesn't necessarily equate to high profit. When I personally discovered that, I stopped bothering myself on how high a movie grossed or if it grossed billion dollar to what profit did it make in terms of gross and net.

PS: I have no issue with Disney and Marvel, common, why should i? besides Spiderman is my 2nd favorite comic book character after Batman.

#Xavier.
#I_Am_A_DCian.

AfricaGalactic:

I'm not sure what's wrong with his quote; especially the part that you highlighted.

The Lion King = $1,656,943,394 WW
Aladdin = $1,050,693,953 WW

Frozen, in fact, didn't do that bad either. The only problem is that Disney is faking all of the box office numbers just to make it look like they're successful....or so I've been told.....

1000WaysToLive:
I've been an investor of Disney since 2007, I'm aware of whats going on, but thanks anyway.

Also, despite not having the global footprint of Netflix yet, Mando is crushing it,

Witcher beat it the week after it's release on the 20th, but Mando regained it last week, deservedly so....

Themandalorian:

Why so you say so? I believe they will pick up in a couple of years no one expects them to be the next big thing right now except the expectations that people have for Disney is madly high.

Blackspider:
The streaming world is different from watching movies from the theater, for example you would be comfortable watching porn on your phone than on a TV because it's more private. Same can be said with streaming service which is more private than a Cinema. Adults will hunger for mature contents which Disney wouldn't be able to supply and than would decrease demand for their service.

pu7pl3:


you re welcome and No wonder you been riding their dick this hard(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)


The Witcher is the biggest TV show in the world right now mate stop arguing

Queenkofoworola:
Avengers Endgame was boring.

Themandalorian:

You do make a lot of sense but you know Disney plan to target different ages in their audience as it has always been from time. So there is gonna be enough contents for everyone. The key thing is if the so called programs will be liked. Time will tell though.

1000WaysToLive:
Context please. Again

I meant what I said in the sense that if you add the the percentage they take from box office revenues with the ancillary revenue sources derived from these films, it's definitely in the billions.


Yes I understand how the business of film works, but they still make more overall profit then other studios becuse of the IP brand of these films and the fact they make less films overall (spend less).

You said, "Disney had a loss in it's third quarter despite having a revenue of $9b+ from six movies (excluding frozen 2, maleficent 2, star wars 9), that's huge. Blaming fox properties and the acquisition of Fox which occurred in March 2019 is ridiculous. Revenues from those movies should have covered up that loss but no it didn't, why? because they didn't make high profits to do so."


They gave investors a reason (among others) why they fell below Wall St. esimates for the quarter...one of those films on the Fox slate was Dark Phoenix, which underperformed even the lowest expectations. They basically told everyone they were not in control of the development or production of those films to ease any negative market sentiment about the Fox purchase.


It was a factor among factors, I just don't get the reason to get up in arms about that statement when it was obvious that Iger was underscoring that point for the bigger picture of Fox moving forward. Anyway, it's all good.

Take for instance, Aquaman grossed $1.148b but had a net profit of $260.5M (only, fear catch me. This is almost the same with wonder woman which turned in a profit of $252.9M against a revenue of $821.8M, now you see, Wonder Woman didn't gross a billion yet it's profit is at the same range with the billion dollar grossing Aquaman), Star Wars: The Force Awakens grossed $2.068b but had a net profit of $780M (I know that's huge but when compared to $2.068b gross, that's not too good, so the profit was not even in billions, where did the rest of the money go to?). From those grosses people will be screaming WB and Disney, this this that that money money billions billions , but in true sense, they do not know that's not how it is.

Ok. I take back what I said about Sony selling Spider-Man, but outside Spider-Man, Sony really don’t have much going for them.
They’re pretty lacking overall of reliably successful IP.
Men In Black flopped, so did Ghostbusters(it’s a coin toss if the reboot this year will be successful) and they don’t have Bond anymore. Not to mention Charlie’s Angels was a massive failure.
Jumanji is really all that they have outside Spider-Man. Last year was a pretty good year for them since Brightburn and Once Upon In Hollywood, and of course Jumanji performed well, and thanks to Disney/Marvel’s help they managed to get a movie that to the billion dollar finish line with Far From Home but doesn’t escape the fact they don’t have much going for them in terms of major franchises at the moment.
Compare that to Disney which has had an embarrassment of riches when it comes to big IP that consistently delivers even outside the MCU. They have Star Wars & Pixar which you can make dozens of movies out of and literally made them billions of dollars, and even their live-action remakes like Lion King and Aladdin have been incredibly successful and also joined the billion dollar club.

Vic2Ree:
[s]It's a new year, DCtards. Get over yourselves[/s]

1000WaysToLive:
By the way, I'm also an investor in Netflix

Good for you mayne

Not Sony though.

So what's your excuse, your desire to ride posters' dick in here that is?

(I don't need to give you the benefit of the doubt, I've seen a couple posts on this thread that have already commented on this effective technique)

you don't need me to but I still do soo ....

You said, "The Witcher is the biggest TV show in the world right now mate stop arguing"

Well, you got me 'bro', until possibly next week. Checkmate. I guess Mando had it's day. I should check the stats daily before making such claims, it shouldn't be hard as I do it with my stocks after all. This is what I get for living in the past

I don't think anything will happen next week tho but that remains to be seen...

Good sport

Raalsalghul:

Vic2Ree:
[s][/s]

Thrash!

Raalsalghul:

Thrash!

Xavier5:


If they made billions as you claim, then they wouldn't have made that loss in the third quarter. So you are trying to tell me that $9b+ from six movies is not enough to cover up loses if billion dollar grossing means high or billion dollar profit? bro that's ridiculous, the only way that's possible is if the profits from those billion dollar movies are not high to cover up the loses, which then streamline everything down to the message I've been trying to pass accross, "Billion dollar Grossing or high grossing doesn't necessarily equate to high Profits. Because a movie made billions in revenue doesn't necessarily mean that it made high Profit, that's why Disney still incurred that lose despite the fact that they had those billion dollar grossers even before the end of the third quarter. Get my message clear, billion dollar grossing or high grossing doesn't necessarily equate to high profit, Endgame vs Joker, BvS vs Wonder Woman etc are there for references and instances. Take for instance, Aquaman grossed $1.148b but had a net profit of $260.5M (only, fear catch me. This is almost the same with wonder woman which turned in a profit of $252.9M against a revenue of $821.8M, now you see, Wonder Woman didn't gross a billion yet it's profit is at the same range with the billion dollar grossing Aquaman), Star Wars: The Force Awakens grossed $2.068b but had a net profit of $780M (I know that's huge but when compared to $2.068b gross, that's not too good, so the profit was not even in billions, where did the rest of the money go to?). From those grosses people will be screaming WB and Disney, this this that that money money billions billions , but in true sense, they do not know that's not how it is.

All this argument started when you said Sony doesn't have any franchise to work on or doesn't have successfull Franchise simply because they are not billion dollar grossers like Disney. Below is the comment by you



I had to reply you to tell you that Billion dollar grossing doesn't necessarily equate to high profit and non billion dollar grossing doesn't also necessarily equate to low Profit, and not only that I also showed you that Sony has a lot of Franchises to work on, hit ones inclusive, they don't necessarily need to be billion dollar grosser, all they need is to be profit making machine whether billion dollar grossing or not, Tick Tock. That's the argument, I hope you understand that.

#Xavier.
#Proudly_A_DCian.

1000WaysToLive:
I was already planning to put you and pu7pl3 on ignore but I still can see your posts when I log out and you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument here.


While I will no longer respond to either of you, I need to clarify that I never really made the argument that Sony wasn’t successful because of a lack of billion dollar movies.


The whole point of me mentioning Disney live-action and Pixar movies reaching a billion dollars was to illustrate how much more successful Disney is in comparison to Sony, as well as illustrate just how much Sony are intrinsically at a disadvantage when it comes to reliably big successful IP.


They really don’t have much on their plate in the arena. Why is Disney the most successful movie studio for so many years now? ==> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/lists/studio-by-studio-profitability-ranking-disney-surges-sony-sputters-977497

See the attached image or view the link itself.

The answer lies in them having the most biggest IP at their disposal that consistently deliver great results.

You are using my initial post to try and make a bigger point about profit vs box office like anybody here doesn’t have a basic understanding of how box office works.

SMH

AfricaGalactic:
With regard to The Mandalorian and The Witcher, you guys should consider the platform. Like, come on . All things being equal, you would expect The Witcher to far outpace The Mandalorian. How many people have Netflix as opposed to Disney +? I think it speaks volumes that The Mandalorian is even in the same area code

‘The Mandalorian’ Vs. ‘The Witcher,’ Disney Plus Vs. Netflix, In One Chart

Here's a snip of info from the above website.

Just for fun, here are some other Witcher vs. Mandalorian metrics to compare:

* The Witcher RT Critic Score: 64%
* The Mandalorian RT Critic Score: 94%
* The Witcher RT Audience Score : 93%
* The Mandalorian RT Audience Score: 93%
* The Witcher IMDB Audience Score: 8.5
* The Mandalorian IMDB Audience Score: 8.9
* The Witcher Metacritic Critic Score: 53
* The Mandalorian Metacritic Critic Score: 69
* The Witcher Metacritic Audience Score: 7.8
* The Mandalorian Metacritic Audience Score: 8.4
SOURCE: FORBES

IAmSabrina:

Yeah. I think everyone (well, "almost" everyone) understands the relative situations of Disney and Sony. It's not that Sony has tanked over the last couple of years, but if anyone thinks they are as well situated as Disney, they are deluding themselves. My point is that we just don't know where Sony will be in 2 or 3 years. They may be fine and they may not be. Where Disney will be in 2 or 3 years is a much safer bet. Could the new Ghostbusters hit? Sure, but Pixar, Marvel, etc. are pretty much sure things. Will Marvel crush it out of the park like they did with Avengers? Probably not, but I don't see them putting out something that tanks like Justice League or Charlie's Angels. Could a new Marvel movie under perform at the box office? Sure, but, long term, I think they are going to be okay.

You don't know where Sony will be in 2 or 3 years..really? these narratives y'all are trying to spin I don't even get the angle or the kick y'all are trying to get out of it

1000WaysToLive:
I was already planning to put you and pupl3 on ignore but I still can see your posts when I log out and you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument here.


While I will no longer respond to either of you, I need to clarify that I never really made the argument that Sony wasn’t successful because of a lack of billion dollar movies.


The whole point of me mentioning Disney live-action and Pixar movies reaching a billion dollars was to illustrate how much more successful Disney is in comparison to Sony, as well as illustrate just how much Sony are intrinsically at a disadvantage when it comes to reliably big successful IP.


They really don’t have much on their plate in the arena. Why is Disney the most successful movie studio for so many years now? ==> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/lists/studio-by-studio-profitability-ranking-disney-surges-sony-sputters-977497

See the attached image or view the link itself.

The answer lies in them having the most biggest IP at their disposal that consistently deliver great results.

You are using my initial post to try and make a bigger point about profit vs box office like anybody here doesn’t have a basic understanding of how box office works.

SMH

Tagging me to this post automatically makes me respond even tho it has nothing to do with the previous arguement (and even the old site you dropped clearly shows how Sony had things going for them as far back as 2016).....I fail to see how that helps your narrative .a narrative that is absolutely wrong btw

Also I called you a good sport earlier..I take that back

IAmSabrina:

LOL. Talk about hitting the nail on the goddamn head!

So, let's all agree. Having a movie that grosses 1B doesn't necessarily translate to having a higher net revenue than a movie that grosses less. We all understand income and expenses and, from what I've read, no one actually said that. Setting up a straw man and then knocking him down is a known technique.

Star Wars "has" made Disney well over a billion dollars. When I say that, I mean the franchise and not a single movie. Ditto for Pixar. The Joker, like Deadpool, was a breakout hit. Both were done on a low budget and made a LOT of money. When I say Disney is situated better than Sony, I point to established franchises and divisions that other movie studios can only dream about. While making movies of this sort can be expensive, they are pretty much guaranteed to make money. Movies with less public recognition or less popularity are much more likely to bomb. When they hit, they make a lot of money. When they bomb, they lose. There's just a lot more variability and less reliability with lesser known or less popular franchises.

Cc. AfricaGalactic, Xavier5, 1000WaysToLive, Themandalorian, pu7pl3

pu7pl3:


You don't know where Sony will be in 2 or 3 years..really? these narratives y'all are trying to spin I don't even get the angle or the kick y'all are trying to get out of it

pu7pl3:



Nobody is arguing who is bigger between Disney and Sony (that's another topic) both of you are trying to make it look like Sony has nothing at all and are on the brink of collapse..in his words"Sony doesn't have anything going for them" and that's the narrative I've been trying to debunk on this thread..this point you made has nothing to do with anything

pu7pl3:


Tagging me to this post automatically makes me respond even tho it has nothing to do with the previous arguement (and even the old site you dropped clearly shows how Sony had things going for them as far back as 2016).....I fail to see how that helps your narrative .a narrative that is absolutely wrong btw

Also I called you a good sport earlier..I take that back

IAmSabrina:

No, pupl3. I don't know where Sony will be in the next 2-3 years. They may do quite well and they may not. You speak of these as if they are all sure fire hits and I don't think that's the case. Spiderverse was very well received, but, from a box office perspective, it wasn't a smash hit. It was easily out grossed by Ant-Man (AM cost about 40M more and brought in about 150M more); which is one of Marvels lowest grossing movies. I fully expect the sequel to do better at the box office, but let's not pretend this is a sure fire mega hit. Ditto for Hotel Transylvania. It could do quite well, but maybe not.

I am saying that Disney has a lot more arrows in their quiver than does Sony pictures. When you compare the upcoming Sony slate to Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, it's just not in the same league.

I don't say this because I get a kick out of it and I'm certainly not trying to spin anything. I'm looking at this as objectively as I can and firmly believe Sony would love to trade places with Disney.

FFS, pupl3, stop being obtuse about this. Sony's slate is mediocre when compared to Disney. That's the argument. At least it's MY argument.

pu7pl3:



Nobody is arguing who is bigger between Disney and Sony (that's another topic) both of you are trying to make it look like Sony has nothing at all and are on the brink of collapse..in his words"Sony doesn't have anything going for them" and that's the narrative I've been trying to debunk on this thread..this point you made has nothing to do with anything

IAmSabrina:

OK. This is awkward but I think the majority of his post was directed towards Xavier. He only really mentioned you in an (inconsequential) first sentence.

Vic2Ree:

LoL. Bruh I don't think anybody here is dissing Sony's slate. Sabrina and the others are just trying to state that relative to Disney, Sony's film slate is not as exciting. On absolute terms however, Sony's slate is just fine. That's how I understand it