King of the Left Wing Flops

[head of joaquin]

Actors who get involved in politics always lead to disaster. Witness Reagan and Schwarzenegger.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your Wikipedia source. It takes it's definition of "flop" from some random blog.

Geez, if only I had used other sources...like I did...

By the way, do you have anything to refute the source?

Especially when you present it in your usual pompous manner.

I'm only pompous when I have to speak in a patronizing tone to people.

And this is further reflected by your use of such authoritative sources as "wisegeek".

I simply did a Google search, and I just picked the first ones I found. I am still waiting on YOUR sources though...

In fact, you only present one source that can be described as authoritative, which is the one from CNBC. But it's definition doesn't even reflect your original one, which was focused on making back production costs (which you did do in post 5...).

Ahh, but it did disprove your claim that a movie can make a profit and still be a flop, which in turn disproved your claim I didn't know what I was talking about. Which is the reason I posted it in the first place.

You should stop now. It's getting kind of sad the way you're grasping at straws. Actually, I'll tell you what. I'll play to your ego. I won't post again and prove you wrong again in this thread. So you go ahead and post something else inaccurate or ridiculous and I won't point out how/why it's inaccurate and ridiculous. I'll let you have the last word. How does that sound? Pompous? Well....

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Geez, if only I had used other sources...like I did...

Yes, mostly other wikipedia pages and "wisegeek". Which all suffer from the same problem. Which is why it was hilarious that you were presenting them in your usual smug manner

By the way, do you have anything to refute the source?

Why would I need to present something authoritative to refute someone's random opinion?

Ahh, but it did disprove your claim that a movie can make a profit and still be a flop

making movies is an extremely risky business. If you think someone is going to see risking 300 million to make a 20 million profit as a success, then I am fine with crediting that to your general ignorance

 

[ReformCollege]

Wealth is relative. Using your example before, if we both have $0 and live as they did 100,000 years ago, we're still poor in comparison to the people who DON'T live that way today.

If $0 was in existence, then perhaps money would not be the way to determine wealth, land would be. Or maybe the number of wives. At the end of the day, one can only be poor if someone else is rich. Otherwise, everyone is equal in wealth (or lack thereof).

I consider wealth to be an absolute measure. If I'm dying of starvation and lack of hygiene etc., I don't really care what year it is or how rich the richest person in the world is. I'm still dying and living miserably.

I have no idea, but let's say he had a job which didn't provide insurance but which didn't pay enough to afford health insurance (or at least not enough to cover medical expenses). Or maybe he had a pre-existing condition.

I honestly don't know the circumstances, except to know this child will grow up in an exceedingly poor family and her chances of being wealthy are much lower than those of someone whose parents live in a million dollar home.

I don't see it that like that. I see it as, everyone has the same opportunity to increase their absolute living standards by 10% from their parents. Regardless of how wealthy you are, I still say everyone has that same opportunity to do just a bit better.

Two jobs. That's why the girl regularly has to cook and clean for the family, which makes it more difficult to focus on her school work.

Still, she's in 6th grade or lower, I wouldn't completely give up on her yet. I've also met plenty of people who weren't good students but succeeded in college. Besides, how much time does one have to spend on school at that age?

Oh, I agree completely. All I'm doing is holding it up as an example to show that being poor isn't as simple as you were making it sound.

Its simple to me. Poverty is a disease with many causes. A large one is choices. I don't think I ever claimed that it is 100% choices, but everyone makes choices that either help or hurt their standing.

I do many things at the school actually. But as far as teaching goes, I teach a computer class to 4th grade and PE classes to 5th and 6th grade.

My middle school PE teacher got into some trouble with a few parents for actually pushing kids to do the physical part of physical education. Hopefully no one is pulling your strings too hard.

 

[Slyfox696]

For anyone wanting more sources on what constitutes a "flop" in the movie business:

Statistical analysis of motion picture markets has led to intriguing results, such as observing the evidence for a Pareto law for movie income [18], [19] along with a log-normal distribution of the gross income per theater and a bimodal distribution of the number of theaters in which a movie is shown [20]. By analyzing historical data about 70 years of the American movie market, Sreenivasan has argued that the movies with higher level of novelty (assigned based on keywords from the Internet Movie Database) produce larger revenue [21]. Despite much effort with different approaches, predicting the financial success of a movie remains a challenging open problem. For example, Sharda and Delen have trained a neural network to process pre-release data, such as quality and popularity variables, and classify movies into nine categories according to their anticipated income, from “flop” to “blockbuster”.

PLOS ONE: Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success Based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data

Just came across that a few minutes ago.

I consider wealth to be an absolute measure. If I'm dying of starvation and lack of hygiene etc., I don't really care what year it is or how rich the richest person in the world is. I'm still dying and living miserably.

But if you're eating better and and benefit from better hygiene, then you are wealthier.

The point is we can only identify rich and poor by discrepancies. People can only be rich if others are poor.

I don't see it that like that. I see it as, everyone has the same opportunity to increase their absolute living standards by 10% from their parents. Regardless of how wealthy you are, I still say everyone has that same opportunity to do just a bit better.

And I still say I agree, but it's just not that simple either.

Still, she's in 6th grade or lower

She's actually older than 6th grade (and I really wouldn't feel comfortable saying much more than that, for professional reasons). Like I said, I have many duties at the school.

I wouldn't completely give up on her yet. I've also met plenty of people who weren't good students but succeeded in college.

I hope she has the chance to attend college. I would not be surprised if it turns out she doesn't.

Besides, how much time does one have to spend on school at that age?

It differs for different students. Like I said, she's older than 6th grade, but the amount of time necessary is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is parental support.

Its simple to me. Poverty is a disease with many causes. A large one is choices.

And choices are made based on many different causes.

My middle school PE teacher got into some trouble with a few parents for actually pushing kids to do the physical part of physical education. Hopefully no one is pulling your strings too hard.

:lol:

I once had a parent complain that doing a 5 minute jog in class was so hard on the child, she actually "got so hot she was cold". I'm not making that up, I don't think I could make that up.


Also, for what it's worth, it's been an all around good discussion.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

For anyone wanting more sources on what constitutes a "flop" in the movie business.

from your quote: "Sharda and Delen have trained a neural network to process pre-release data, such as quality and popularity variables, and classify movies into nine categories according to their anticipated income, from “flop” to “blockbuster"

how would the above clarify what is considered a flop?

 

[Slyfox696]

from your quote: "Sharda and Delen have trained a neural network to process pre-release data, such as quality and popularity variables, and classify movies into nine categories according to their anticipated income, from “flop” to “blockbuster"

how would the above clarify what is considered a flop?

The fact it was based on income of the movie, not the other things you tried to tell me earlier affect a movie's status as a flop (like expectations).


By the way, I only broke my word from before because I can understand this to be a reasonable and legitimate question and leading to reasonable discussion.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The fact it was based on income of the movie, not the other things you tried to tell me earlier affect a movie's status as a flop (like expectations).

Ugh, Everything I mentioned directly deals with income. What I disagreed with was your original assertion that it was based on simply returning production costs, and your later shift to simply making a profit. In fact, what "expectations" referred to is the specific amount of return on an investment, and how a low profitable return on what was expected to be a summer blockbuster is considered a 'flop" . As you can see here where I further explain the idea:

"making movies is an extremely risky business. If you think someone is going to see risking 300 million to make a 20 million profit as a success, then I am fine with crediting that to your general ignorance"

By the way, I only broke my word from before because I can understand this to be a reasonable and legitimate question and leading to reasonable discussion.

lol, you always say you're not going to respond, but you do so anyway. So stop lying

 

[Slyfox696]

lol, you always say you're not going to respond, but you do so anyway. So stop lying

This is why it's hard for me to have respect for you. You insist on being antagonistic, despite the fact I was extending to you a sign of respect. I'm not lying. I've told many people I won't respond and I stop. I do it quite often actually. I even did it for you, until you calmly asked a reasonable question. You then turn my answer into another insult. You accuse me constantly of being pompous or arrogant or whatever, and yet here you are still being offensive. In fact, I believe you've instigated just about everything in this thread, starting with the fact you replied to me and then insulted me first with your statement of "So maybe educate yourself before constantly trying to adopt some fake air of authority." which we later found out I was right about, as I've proven multiple times now. Whereas I once at least thought you were a reasonable person, I now believe otherwise.

So, this will be my last post to you in this thread, no matter what reasonable or stupid thing you may yet say. At the end of the day, all your twisting and juggling will not change the fact you were wrong and I was right. A movie which makes money is not a flop. When we're only comparing production budget and box office (as was suggested in both the OP and your second post to me in this thread), a movie which makes money is not a flop. If we take into account marketing budget, we have to take into account sales outside of the box office and a movie which turns a profit is not a flop. You have been wrong in nearly every way possible. "High expectations" have nothing to do with whether a movie was a flop, as you said it did. You were wrong. A movie which turns a profit is not considered a flop, as you said it did. You were wrong.

Now I'm sure you'll feel the need to write back, trying to hedge your previous words to show you weren't wrong, because you apparently have a great desire to be right, or at the very least, prove me wrong. I think that's a difference between us, I argue because I'm right and you seem to argue to prove me wrong. At least that's how I see it. Anyways, feel free to write back, and just know I won't respond to you at all, regardless of how reasonable you may sound. Because I know now that no matter how reasonable you may sound in a future post, it's nothing more than a way to attack me later. Have a good day.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

This is why it's hard for me to have respect for you. You insist on being antagonistic, despite the fact I was extending to you a sign of respect. I'm not lying.

If you don't want me to point out that you're lying a simple solution would be not to li

I even did it for you, until you calmly asked a reasonable question.

No, you certainly claim you're going to stop responding, but you inevitably respond.

You then turn my answer into another insult.

I'm not sure how you expect people to respond when you engage them in such a condescending manner.

You accuse me constantly of being pompous or arrogant or whatever, and yet here you are still being offensive. In fact, I believe you've instigated just about everything in this thread, starting with the fact you replied to me and then insulted me first with your statement of "So maybe educate yourself before constantly trying to adopt some fake air of authority." which we later found out I was right about, as I've proven multiple times now.

lol. This is another thing you constantly do: claim you were right when you were obviously wrong.

 

[ReformCollege]

The point is we can only identify rich and poor by discrepancies. People can only be rich if others are poor.

My point is you can still be poor without others being rich. And I see your point. Mine is just that the discrepancy doesn't have to be only between you and other people. It is also between you and yourself. If you are living 15% better now then you were 10 years ago, but everyone else is living 20% better, is it really fair to say that they are worse off now then you were then? I honestly don't think so.

I once had a parent complain that doing a 5 minute jog in class was so hard on the child, she actually "got so hot she was cold". I'm not making that up, I don't think I could make that up.

Facepalm.

Also, for what it's worth, it's been an all around good discussion.

It is worth quite a bit. We may disagree about the minutes, but I think we both want the same end results.

 

[notquiteright]

Update on 'Elysium'
3.4 weeks, combined ticket sales top 176 million
production cost 115 million.

So much for the Con cries of flop. So much for the Con opinion sales were dropping exponentially. so much for the audiences hating 'left-wing propaganda'. So much for money men not backing more Matt Damon films...

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Update on 'Elysium'
3.4 weeks, combined ticket sales top 176 million
production cost 115 million.

So much for the Con cries of flop. So much for the Con opinion sales were dropping exponentially. so much for the audiences hating 'left-wing propaganda'. So much for money men not backing more Matt Damon films...

like the op, it's hilarious that this is even important to you.

 

[Slyfox696]

Update on 'Elysium'
3.4 weeks, combined ticket sales top 176 million
production cost 115 million.

So much for the Con cries of flop. So much for the Con opinion sales were dropping exponentially. so much for the audiences hating 'left-wing propaganda'. So much for money men not backing more Matt Damon films...

I'm sure breitbart.com will issue a correction in the near future....



Yeah, never mind, we both know I was joking. It just goes to show how ridiculous some people can be with their whole "liberal media" nonsense.