Oh they pan out just fine. You constantly argue with reasonable inferences and conventional wisdom just to disagree. Remind me again how FFINO turned out? Or how MoS didn't have a mixed reception? Just two examples of many.
Frankly, your own argument works best against you in this scenario: I'm not convinced that the $160 million in promotional tie-ins was enough to clear the $100 million difference in TWS and MoS' box office given that, you're exactly right, we don't know what TWS made back either. You're seemingly ignoring that this goes both ways in favor of painting a more favorable picture for the movie we know grossed 100 million less than the other. To try and dance around that pretty significant difference to fudge the numbers in favor of the loser is pedantic and trivial, but that's par for the course I guess.
Oh, and just some research to put this nonsense to bed:
Deadline speculated* the net profit for TWS to be $166.2 million, compared to a paltry $42.7 million for Warner Bros.
Sources:...
Guess I'll chalk this up as another one of my attempts that "panned out".
I’m sorry but what you claim as ‘reasonable inference and conventional wisdom’ is more often than not just unprovable facts that everyone is suppose to swallow because well that's just how we do around here. That we can just claim anything as evidence of anything we want cause well you know conventional wisdom and things like that. That’s what your point amounts to. This can’t be how debates are resolved. Facts and real numbers, not spins and hearsay, what's supposedly popular; the latters may lead to opinions(apparently) but the former leads to things like definitive results and the ability to actually claim someone doesn’t make sense in the midst of the ‘the truth’, 'the fact' etc. You enjoy using such titles without actually putting in the work. We'd probably disagree less if one of these things changed.
Anyhow, when faced with that and you then finally chalk up some real evidence, in the midst of the google scramble you put out some ‘thing’ and claim your work is done for scrutiny of said reporting will then be said to be unnecessary for we are suppose to just generally accept this stuff as authoritative. I’m still curious about that dvd report stuff you pulled out of somewhere only to then pull the old “nothing to see here folks..marvin this marvin that, am I right”
Which brings me to this latest bit of reporting. Yes another one that doesn’t ‘pan out’ unfortunately. Though I’ll give you credit for actually trying this time. What exactly did you research and put said 'nonsense to bed' with this time. Ignoring the wiki stuff(for obvious reasons but also cause it just points to the deadline stuff?)... let’s check out the deadline report instead, the one that opens with “Instead of relying on numbers from studios that would make us susceptible to spin, we instead confidentially engaged two separate experts from entities that regularly create revenue models.” Umm…sorry but this is literally conjecture. They are making their ‘estimates’ based on incomplete information and with straight up un named sources? What accounts for an insider in the world of ad driven internet columns today? Who are these sources, what kinda track record do they have etc..
It’s a known fact that it’s almost impossible to get official studio numbers on things and when it happens, like they said there is often studio agenda in the mix(keep profits low so as to not have to pay RDJ if you will or the opposite). So to get around this mega obstacle this writer does something that amounts to just north of making up his own? How does this resolve the issue of missing facts and the true nature of these differentials? Now I’m not claiming this is all entirely worthless but you do see what I’m getting at don’t you? Especially with any respect to how close the totals actually are and with how you claim to put things to bed.
This, with all it’s suspect nature is what I’m expecting to see(
https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg?w=970), instead what did you provide for MOS exactly? Even the comments in that article are asking for something approaching even a makeshift phony breakdown, among other things. What’s more and this is key, their ‘experts’ decide to inflate the mos production budget alone to 258(where’d this come from cause TWS seemed to remain as listed) and they added on another 60 for nolan and the salary of the rest of the producers? Huh? So then, this was also added to that TWS one in some form though its’ not at all indicated in their own makeshift unsourced listed breakdown? Looking at the ‘official’ one from WB what we know for sure is the categories themselves are legit, looking at the total expenses which themselves are massively significant, why am I not seeing a lot of those same categories in the makeshift tws one? Serious question for it paints this as something boarding on a BoMojo speculative list based on things they want to base it on. And before you make it about me and not your actual argument, allow me: why you decided to present this comparison to captain pandantry(excessive concern with minor details and rules) of all people I’ll never know. Unless of course you didn’t care to examine these details for yourself but rather just saw the ‘source’ and left it at that. Which is kinda my entire issue in a nutshell.
You can, as you do, believe whatever you want for that’s your prerogative and clearly informs your opinion but I will call out this sort of ‘stuff’ when presented as anything definitive for it’s like I told you that other time: We aren’t entitled to our own facts. Understand that before you again claim to present them.
As for this “Frankly, your own argument works best against you in this scenario..” Um first of all, 160mill is a confirmed number, this 100 million is conjecture at worse and even less at best. Secondly it’s because we don’t know what TWS has that the question is being raised. You argue that it literally goes both ways and I get that to a point but I’m not sure you do for do you have any reference for the scale of difference..at all? I know I don’t. And 160 is a figure larger than any difference in profit margin you can stretch. Do you know what promotional tie ins are? I actually don’t, I suspect it’s other companies wanting to use your brand to sell their ish. The more known the brand the more companies want to use it to sell their pencils and erasers and hamburgers. More people want to use starwars than want to use a lesser known hellboy, and for this reason. It’s probably not as ‘even’ as you would like to think, then again it might be but I for one am not about to say for sure, thus I’m not the one actually asserting a positive only the possibility of a large discrepancy. I’d back this particular rhetoric up to you of all people with some fittingly timed ‘informed inference’ if you will: That of Superman being more known world wide ‘everyone knows this..’ and more of note, the question as to why mos' promotional tie in number was so publicized to begin with, whereas the other one(s) not so much?
Lastly, I would be careful when throwing around a term like unnecessary debate to describe opposing views. It’s rife with self affirmation and worse. “Why are they disagreeing with me, can’t they see my side if obviously right…” then opposition thoroughly presents a retort beyond "so what". Leading to person falling deeper and deeper into the false belief that their opposition must either just want to disagree with thy divine opinion or that person is simply being overly ‘factual’. The belief so strongly in ones own perspective that they admittedly lack any respect for the existence of an opposing view is the surest way to not see one at all. Looking at how you carry on, that would be how I would describe the experience. But only because you are so eager do describe your own take. Not that it matters at all but this is why I appreciate the posters like The Question, almost never agree but there is grace there. Neither here nor there though.
As for defending the film from all angles, hardly if one actually considers how many angles there possibly are. But again through the eyes of the self important..yea I suppose that would be about all and then some for you yourself have presented ‘all’, and ‘all’ have been attacked of course. And no your hyperbole isn’t lost on me in this moment, I’ve just decided to give it back to you. I do find it a tad irksome that you would reference the mos is divisive discussion without actually acknowledging how it ‘ended’, rather on the note you left it. I suppose it’s easier to simply play off something after the fact as opposed to deliver in the moment.
