D&D Movie/TV D&D 2 is possibility still

[mamba]

When you repeatedly get the same reaction to your post from multiple people, it's not clear that's what you meant from the post.

yeah, I think it is more that some people look for any excuse to defend the movie. The quoted text was clear on what was the CEO saying and what was the article, you both managed to identify it correctly and point that out

 

[mamba]

By saying what you did in red, you are claiming that what follows is all said by the person you are referencing.

agreed to disagree, it is clear what is the quote, the rest was context, and you conveniently ignore the other post of mine where the first sentence is missing, just two posts down. You understood exactly what was the quote, so did I, and I suspect pretty much anyone else.

If you think the Paramount CEO Brian Robbins said "Robbins isn’t abandoning the idea of more “Dungeons & Dragons,” though if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.”" then I do not know what to say...

 

[Ferrousbones]

Ignoring that Hasbro may not be in the movie to see profit from Box Office is a significant assumption.
If Hasbro did want to see profit from Box Office they would not have negotiated away distribution rights to 95% of the movie seeing public.

I am not making any such assumption, simply addressing costs vs earnings of the movie. How that breaks down by individual studios/companies is something that we don't know, and cannot math out.

Further, since publically traded corporate entities will absolutely avoid publically stating that something failed to earn a profit, and will similarly not say something will fail to profit, we cannot rely upon their comments.

I prefer to just look at the math, and be clear that I am speculating, including what I think the range might be.

 

[Ferrousbones]

agreed to disagree, it is clear what is the quote, the rest was context, and you conveniently ignore the other post of mine where the first sentence is missing, just two posts down. You understood exactly what was the quote, so did I, and I suspect pretty much anyone else.

It doesn't matter if I understood, what matters is if the statement was clear or muddied.
Again, if you are quoting someone, the entire quote must be of that person. In this case, you are quoting 2 people, but only speaking about 1, which means that by definition, it isn't clear.

Below is the proper, clear way to quote the CEO in this context:

According to the author:

Even a star’s ability to make audiences swoon isn’t always enough to guarantee that a movie will make money. “Babylon,” an epic about the silent movie era, collapsed at the box office when Paramount released it last December, despite starring Brad Pitt, while “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” will lose money even though Chris Pine led the ensemble.

On the topic of a sequel:

Robbins isn’t abandoning the idea of more “Dungeons & Dragons,” though if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.”

Now, if you only want to quote the CEO, you do this:

According to the CEO:

if there’s a sequel, he says, “We’ve got to figure out a way to make it for less.”

 

[Mistwell]

yeah, I think it is more that some people look for any excuse to defend the movie. The quoted text was clear on what was the CEO saying and what was the article, you both managed to identify it correctly and point that out

When you repeatedly get the same confusion about what you meant, "it's everyone else" isn't a good rational explanation for what happened. You even had a guy clearly "on your side" of this debate who corrected you and read it the same as literally everyone else who replied to you. It's not everyone else man - you wrote it different than you intended it and it was definitely not clear.

I truly don't care if you "admit it" because there is nothing to "win" with just some minor communication issues. I'm just explaining what happened. It's not our bias and we're not picking on you - you wrote it kinda wonky that's all.

 

[mamba]

It doesn't matter if I understood, what matters is if the statement was clear or muddied.
Again, if you are quoting someone, the entire quote must be of that person.

If this were a dissertation or something similar, I'd agree. This is a post on a forum, to me it was sufficiently clear what the actual quote is, and as far as I can tell, no one was unclear on that yet either.

When you repeatedly get the same confusion about what you meant, "it's everyone else" isn't a good rational explanation for what happened.

We are talking about two people here, so yes it is. No one misunderstood anything, including you two.

If you want to engage further, focus on the content, not the form. I find it telling that all you can complain about is how I did not 'quote correctly' but do not try to refute the content. Fine, I am not interested in this discussion, find something more worthwhile

 

[Mistwell]

If this were a dissertation or something similar, I'd agree. This is a post on a forum, to me it was sufficiently clear what the actual quote is.


We are talking about two people here, so yes it is. No one misunderstood anything, including you two.

If you want to engage further, focus on the content, not the form. I find it telling that all you can complain about is how I did not 'quote correctly' not do not try to refute the content. Fine, I am not interested in this discussion, find something more worthwhile

Look again. It's not two people.
I also did focus on the content. Repeatedly. You can find it telling that I offered you an explanation for your question or not. You cut my saying it's not a big deal and why I was mentioning it at all. Given your standard, you should find that telling too?

 

[bedir than]

I am not making any such assumption, simply addressing costs vs earnings of the movie. How that breaks down by individual studios/companies is something that we don't know, and cannot math out.

Further, since publically traded corporate entities will absolutely avoid publically stating that something failed to earn a profit, and will similarly not say something will fail to profit, we cannot rely upon their comments.

I prefer to just look at the math, and be clear that I am speculating, including what I think the range might be.

You are insisting that the math requires eOne/Hasbro to make their 50% of production costs back from about 5% of distribution. That's bad math, horrible math.

 

[mamba]

Look again. It's not two people.

yes it is, you posting 4 times does not make it more people

I also did focus on the content. Repeatedly.

No, you mentioned other parts of the article

You can find it telling that I offered you an explanation for your question or not.

I had no question and you offered no explanation....

 

[Mistwell]

yes it is, you posting 4 times does not make it more people


No, you mentioned other parts of the article


I had no question and you offered no explanation....

You again cut the most relevant part of my post. OK man, you don't want to have a conversation that's fine.