Sign in

Forum » More General Categories » Misc. » ‘The American Society Of Magical Negroes’ Is A Financial Disaster
  1. Results 31 to 60 of 79
  2. Page 2 of 3
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  9. Last

Thread: ‘The American Society Of Magical Negroes’ Is A Financial Disaster

  1. Rate This Thread
03-19-2024, 09:16 AM
#31
Originally Posted By mikebadg3⏩
haven't seen it, but Dune was a success, and it had a white protagonist, and many white antagonists, while nonwhites were in support roles
Love how the left are calling Dune Part 2 a "white savior" movie.

Clearly they didn't see the movie……
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Dave22reborns avatar
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 96,888
  6. Rep Power: 316,531
Quote
03-19-2024, 09:19 AM
#32
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
It came out that Little Mermaid actually cost 300 million dollars to make, plus who knows how much in marketing, probably around 150 million, and it didn't even make 600 million dollars.

And heres a question, why DID "The Marvels" fail?
Lol if you think TLM didn’t make money bringing in $600M.

Why did Aquman fail? Why did Ant Man fail? Do you blame being woke on every film that fails?

Why’d Barbie clean up then?

Your argument is invalid since I give you examples of non work that failed while the wokest was a smash hit.
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 09:20 AM
#33
What a hilariously stupid movie.

Alienate white people, but choose a biracial incel looking black on top of it.


Not worth getting upset over, but definitely a racist double standard.
  1. ButtSmithers
  2. Banned
  3. ButtSmitherss avatar
  1. ButtSmithers
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Feb 2024
  4. Age: 54
  5. Posts: 119
  6. Rep Power: 0
Quote
03-19-2024, 09:30 AM
#34
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
Lol if you think TLM didn’t make money bringing in $600M.

Why did Aquman fail? Why did Ant Man fail? Do you blame being woke on every film that fails?

Why’d Barbie clean up then?

Your argument is invalid since I give you examples of non work that failed while the wokest was a smash hit.
One movie marketed towards women, that women wanted to see, is the only example you use…..
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Dave22reborns avatar
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 96,888
  6. Rep Power: 316,531
Quote
03-19-2024, 09:35 AM
#35
The amount of gymnastics going on to try and convince people that deeply racist movie didn't flop because it's a deeply racist movie is truly astounding. What's funnier is none of them went to go see the movie either. So it's just pure virtue signaling.

Lefties are really becoming the embodiment of "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. yabbayabbas avatar
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. Join Date: Jun 2005
  4. Location: Burning down the belt warehouse
  5. Posts: 13,725
  6. Rep Power: 137,670
Quote
03-19-2024, 09:41 AM
#36



Can't even hang with video game characters
#34
  1. gachase21
  2. Threatening Democracy
  3. gachase21s avatar
  1. gachase21
  2. Threatening Democracy
  3. Join Date: Dec 2010
  4. Location: Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 24,226
  6. Rep Power: 290,406
Quote
03-19-2024, 10:07 AM
#37
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
It came out that Little Mermaid actually cost 300 million dollars to make, plus who knows how much in marketing, probably around 150 million, and it didn't even make 600 million dollars.

And heres a question, why DID "The Marvels" fail?
I doubt it cost quite that much for production. But it's common knowledge that final costs of big budget films are 2x to 2.5x their production costs. Mass marketing, plus the movie theaters take a fair % of the ticket sales, which is negotiated behind closed doors. In the end The Little Mermaid was a financial flop, but probably not a massive one like the last Indiana Jones film. Meh.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. frankdtank20s avatar
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 16,649
  5. Rep Power: 171,041
Quote
03-19-2024, 10:22 AM
#38
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
I doubt it cost quite that much for production. But it's common knowledge that final costs of big budget films are 2x to 2.5x their production costs. Mass marketing, plus the movie theaters take a fair % of the ticket sales, which is negotiated behind closed doors. In the end The Little Mermaid was a financial flop, but probably not a massive one like the last Indiana Jones film. Meh.
Disney Sinks $300 Million Into ‘Over Budget’ ‘Little Mermaid’ Movie

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolin...h=7c7ba59a4b56
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Dave22reborns avatar
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 96,888
  6. Rep Power: 316,531
Quote
03-19-2024, 10:31 AM
#39
Originally Posted By Dave22reborn⏩
Disney Sinks $300 Million Into ‘Over Budget’ ‘Little Mermaid’ Movie

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolin...h=7c7ba59a4b56
If that's the case then it would've lost Disney in the neighborhood of $50-100 million. The last Indiana Jones would've lost Disney over $300 million. Fuark that one had to hurt.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. frankdtank20s avatar
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 16,649
  5. Rep Power: 171,041
Quote
03-19-2024, 11:55 AM
#40
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
If that's the case then it would've lost Disney in the neighborhood of $50-100 million. The last Indiana Jones would've lost Disney over $300 million. Fuark that one had to hurt.
That's what's hilarious about all of, there's the original budget for these movies, and then the true budget is usually revealed around six months later.

For example, People believe the Marvels was only 220 million to make, that was before the reshoots.
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Dave22reborns avatar
  1. Dave22reborn
  2. Cold Hearted SOB
  3. Join Date: Jan 2005
  4. Location: Ill.
  5. Posts: 96,888
  6. Rep Power: 316,531
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:35 PM
#41
What's hilarious is that you tards think the old 2 - 2.5 multiplier holds whether a movie cost $50M or $300M.

SAD
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:37 PM
#42
I see white libs are furious
* Tennessee Titans* * St. Louis Cards*
  1. Titansfan08
  2. Registered User
  3. Titansfan08s avatar
  1. Titansfan08
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2010
  4. Location: Missouri, United States
  5. Age: 34
  6. Posts: 20,404
  7. Rep Power: 428,415
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:43 PM
#43
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
What's hilarious is that you tards think the old 2 - 2.5 multiplier holds whether a movie cost $50M or $300M.

SAD
So now that he can't defend the movie was woke trash is why it's a flop he's trying to tell us Hollywood accounting doesn't work if it's a low budget movie. All in a sad libtard attempt to try and tell himself the movie isn't a flop and the studio won't lose millions over it.

SAD
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. yabbayabbas avatar
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. Join Date: Jun 2005
  4. Location: Burning down the belt warehouse
  5. Posts: 13,725
  6. Rep Power: 137,670
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:43 PM
#44
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
What's hilarious is that you tards think the old 2 - 2.5 multiplier holds whether a movie cost $50M or $300M.

SAD
1. Marketing budget, often half and well upwards of $100M for those big 200-300M blockbusters

2. Movies split the revenue. Most of the opening weekend, and then less and less, with a general rule of thumb being to only count about half in the US

3. … and to count about 40% overseas, as outside the US the percentage is less for the studios.

My question then: If you're only making about half of the ticket sales, then how is x2 not the bare minimum to consider?

(Note: You do also consider the tax write offs some movies get, like I think Cpt. Marvel had something near $20-50M back, which you would want to take off the production. Also ancillary sales, Mermaid pre-had $140 for it's digital rights, which were sold to Disney, so I'm not sure how much there you consider)
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. JUSAs avatar
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Texas
  5. Posts: 44,272
  6. Rep Power: 458,793
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:47 PM
#45
Originally Posted By JUSA⏩
1. Marketing budget, often half and well upwards of $100M for those big 200-300M blockbusters

2. Movies split the revenue. Most of the opening weekend, and then less and less, with a general rule of thumb being to only count about half in the US

3. … and to count about 40% overseas, as outside the US the percentage is less for the studios.

My question then: If you're only making about half of the ticket sales, then how is x2 not the bare minimum to consider?

(Note: You do also consider the tax write offs some movies get, like I think Cpt. Marvel had something near $20-50M back, which you would want to take off the production)
TLM was 80% US receipts. And yes we need to include marketing cost. We also need to include all revenue streams like merchandise, streaming, corporate tie-ins, etc.

All I'm saying is that a $300M that grossed $600M did not lose the studio money. If you look at the number of movies that make back 2x their cost in BO it's not very large. Yet studies keep pumping these movies out, wonder why.

Indy clearly lost a ton of money. Mission Impossible came close to breaking even. TLM likely made tens of millions but nothing like prior Disney adaptions had made.
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:48 PM
#46
Originally Posted By yabbayabba⏩
So now that he can't defend the movie was woke trash is why it's a flop he's trying to tell us Hollywood accounting doesn't work if it's a low budget movie. All in a sad libtard attempt to try and tell himself the movie isn't a flop and the studio won't lose millions over it.

SAD
Why so angry little guy? Why was it woke trash? Because the cartoon mermaid based on a fairy tale wasn't white?

LMFAO

GGGRRR OUTRAGE!!!!
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:49 PM
#47
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
What's hilarious is that you tards think the old 2 - 2.5 multiplier holds whether a movie cost $50M or $300M.

SAD

Small movie theaters get 20% of their profits from ticket sales.
Large chain movie theaters get up to 65% of their profits from ticket sales.

You were saying?
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. frankdtank20s avatar
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 16,649
  5. Rep Power: 171,041
Quote
03-19-2024, 12:55 PM
#48
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
Small movie theaters get 20% of their profits from ticket sales.
Large chain movie theaters get up to 65% of their profits from ticket sales.

You were saying?
Negative boyo. Movie theaters receipts are tiered. The longer a movie stays in the more the theater gets.

Well I guess that after all the superhero flops the last two years, we'll never see another one right? Losses must be $1B+ when you take all the movies that flopped the last two years.

I guess no more big blockbusters since if they don't gross $1B they lose money according to you folks.

SMH
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 01:00 PM
#49
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
TLM was 80% US receipts. And yes we need to include marketing cost. We also need to include all revenue streams like merchandise, streaming, corporate tie-ins, etc.

All I'm saying is that a $300M that grossed $600M did not lose the studio money. If you look at the number of movies that make back 2x their cost in BO it's not very large. Yet studies keep pumping these movies out, wonder why.

Indy clearly lost a ton of money. Mission Impossible came close to breaking even. TLM likely made tens of millions but nothing like prior Disney adaptions had made.
I'd have to chew on all this for a bit, and after the goofy 73-page thread we had on this back of June of last year - no thanks, but I do gotta say: Not a single word you typed should upset or angry anyone on any level. Not getting that.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. JUSAs avatar
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Texas
  5. Posts: 44,272
  6. Rep Power: 458,793
Quote
03-19-2024, 01:17 PM
#50
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
Negative boyo. Movie theaters receipts are tiered. The longer a movie stays in the more the theater gets.

Well I guess that after all the superhero flops the last two years, we'll never see another one right? Losses must be $1B+ when you take all the movies that flopped the last two years.

I guess no more big blockbusters since if they don't gross $1B they lose money according to you folks.

SMH
What I wrote doesn't conflict with movie theater receipts being tiered. You have reading comprehension of piss, bro. The point being theaters take a sizeable cut of receipts, which is why the 2 -2.5x multiplier stands. Smaller budget films usually have tiny marketing and theaters take a smaller cut of the ticket sales because they're in the theaters for a shorter time, while huge budget films stay in theaters longer. Thank you for accidentally proving my point further. There's nothing wrong with just admitting being wrong. I won't crap on you for it.

No idea why you're gaslighting with the rest of that post. Some superhero projects have been cancelled. Others are too far into development to cancel, though they can and will do rewrites and reshoots. A $300 million film can't turn a profit with less than $600 million in ticket sales. Lulz at how obsessed over this you are. The Little Mermaid was likely a minor/modest financial flop. Spiderman movies on the other hand - fuark. A money printing machine.

There is no chance of the chick from the last Indiana Jones reprising her role in a future Indiana themed film. That may have been the biggest flop in history. Though I could see Disney trying to reboot Indiana Jones as a young man in his teens or early 20s.
Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. frankdtank20s avatar
  1. frankdtank20
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2020
  4. Posts: 16,649
  5. Rep Power: 171,041
Quote
03-19-2024, 02:13 PM
#51
Originally Posted By frankdtank20⏩
What I wrote doesn't conflict with movie theater receipts being tiered. You have reading comprehension of piss, bro. The point being theaters take a sizeable cut of receipts, which is why the 2 -2.5x multiplier stands. Smaller budget films usually have tiny marketing and theaters take a smaller cut of the ticket sales because they're in the theaters for a shorter time, while huge budget films stay in theaters longer. Thank you for accidentally proving my point further. There's nothing wrong with just admitting being wrong. I won't crap on you for it.

No idea why you're gaslighting with the rest of that post. Some superhero projects have been cancelled. Others are too far into development to cancel, though they can and will do rewrites and reshoots. A $300 million film can't turn a profit with less than $600 million in ticket sales. Lulz at how obsessed over this you are. The Little Mermaid was likely a minor/modest financial flop. Spiderman movies on the other hand - fuark. A money printing machine.

There is no chance of the chick from the last Indiana Jones reprising her role in a future Indiana themed film. That may have been the biggest flop in history. Though I could see Disney trying to reboot Indiana Jones as a young man in his teens or early 20s.
Obsessed? I'm just saying that logic would tell you that a movie that makes $600M, 80% domestic, did better than BE.

Hollywood accounting is notoriously sketchy and inflated. I ask again, why do studios churn out these mega budget movies when so few of them earn back 2x their budgets?

Here's a list of just 40 big budget movies that didn't even gross their budgets back let along 2x their budgets. Yet Hollywood pumps these movies out year after year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/big...ffice-bombs/5/
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 02:30 PM
#52
More of a laughingstock than a financial disaster. Even with the wide release, it was only expected to rake in $3 million for the weekend. It made around $1.25 million, which was bad enough, but it was already pretty reviled before it came out due to the horribly smug racist promos.
I did max short it on HSX so I made some bank on that.
Boston sports crew
Live Free or Die 603 crew
Ex-Howard Stern crew
1974 crew

***Connoisseur: Les Derrieres de Femmes ***
  1. HaiMeesk
  2. Jive Azz Turkey
  3. HaiMeesks avatar
  1. HaiMeesk
  2. Jive Azz Turkey
  3. Join Date: Dec 2014
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 9
  6. Posts: 7,557
  7. Rep Power: 49,989
Quote
03-19-2024, 02:32 PM
#53
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
Obsessed? I'm just saying that logic would tell you that a movie that makes $600M, 80% domestic, did better than BE.

Hollywood accounting is notoriously sketchy and inflated. I ask again, why do studios churn out these mega budget movies when so few of them earn back 2x their budgets?
TLM did 52% domestic, tardo.

If it went overbudget up to $300m, it may have not achieved breakeven after all ancillary revenue streams are accounted for.


  1. gwg77
  2. Registered User
  3. gwg77s avatar
  1. gwg77
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 12,237
  6. Rep Power: 870,066
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:11 PM
#54
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
TLM did 52% domestic, tardo.

If it went overbudget up to $300m, it may have not achieved breakeven after all ancillary revenue streams are accounted for.


Yea, you're right and I'm wrong. At one time is was more heavily domestic but regardless you're correct.

It still made a small profit for Disney. Nothing to crow about but certainly not the bigly flop that the constantly angry woke warriors keep talking about.
Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:15 PM
#55
Originally Posted By PowerOfTheBWC⏩

Who started this crap? The other day I saw a video of an African talking in clicks eating a monkey head
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  3. Maestros avatar
  1. Maestro
  2. отличнo!
  3. Join Date: Oct 2002
  4. Location: New Mexico, United States
  5. Posts: 48,638
  6. Rep Power: 186,292
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:19 PM
#56
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
Yea, you're right and I'm wrong. At one time is was more heavily domestic but regardless you're correct.

It still made a small profit for Disney. Nothing to crow about but certainly not the bigly flop that the constantly angry woke warriors keep talking about.
It probably did, not from it's theater run but it was pre-negotiated $140M for the streaming rights… from Disney+, which gets into a new conversation about how much the streaming rights to that movie are worth and if it was overpaid, what does it mean that Disney paid itself from Disney+ for it?

Just from it's theater run? Easily lost 100M, but even without the murkiness about the streaming rights being sold to Disney+, for any movie they are always part of the ancillary revenue that you have to consider. Which, sometimes that takes time to make back (and time = money), but they got theirs here up front.

I think Sillie has the right of it, it made 10-40M. It should have made 100-300M, of course, by casting a young girl who looks and sings like Ariana Grande, or even better, trimmed the fuking budget and made the damn thing for 150M and cast whoever you wanted as Ariele or whatever the mergirl's name is.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

- Arthur Schopenhauer
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. JUSAs avatar
  1. JUSA
  2. No Agony, No Bragony
  3. Join Date: Nov 2004
  4. Location: Texas
  5. Posts: 44,272
  6. Rep Power: 458,793
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:22 PM
#57
Originally Posted By SillieBazzillie⏩
Yea, you're right and I'm wrong. At one time is was more heavily domestic but regardless you're correct.

It still made a small profit for Disney. Nothing to crow about but certainly not the bigly flop that the constantly angry woke warriors keep talking about.
I recall it was supposed to breakeven at $560m box office, but that was at the $250m production cost.

If production costs were really $300m, it ain't looking good, Sillie.

You just gotta accept the fact that the movie lost some coin.
  1. gwg77
  2. Registered User
  3. gwg77s avatar
  1. gwg77
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2017
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 12,237
  6. Rep Power: 870,066
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:33 PM
#58
Originally Posted By gwg77⏩
I recall it was supposed to breakeven at $560m box office, but that was at the $250m production cost.

If production costs were really $300m, it ain't looking good, Sillie.

You just gotta accept the fact that the movie lost some coin.
As I said at the time, the biggest problem wasn't what colour the fish was, but rather the length of the movie. The movie was 135 minutes long. By the time you add trailers and commercials, thats over 2 1/2 hours.

The target audience for that movie (little kids) pee quite frequently and parents don't want to take them to a movie that long.

I would expect to see higher than normal streaming figures for it, as lots of parents would wait and let their kids watch it at home. Regardless of what we, as adults, think of it, kids like watching singing fish.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!

The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.

They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster……
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  3. DuracellBunnys avatar
  1. DuracellBunny
  2. Has new batteries!
  3. Join Date: Nov 2005
  4. Posts: 13,211
  5. Rep Power: 232,248
Quote
03-19-2024, 03:51 PM
#59
The movie was actually pretty good. The mermaid was very good.

And as someone noted, yes the bloated budget is what caused the movie to not be successful.

But many more will get released this year and next.

Anyways, I think that we can all agree that Sillie is correct as usual.

Early AM workout crew.
Holy crap dude, Satan's huge crew.
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. SillieBazzillies avatar
  1. SillieBazzillie
  2. Md, Misc, Old-Brah
  3. Join Date: Jul 2011
  4. Location: Maryland, United States
  5. Age: 56
  6. Posts: 39,260
  7. Rep Power: 209,677
Quote
03-19-2024, 04:15 PM
#60
Imagine a grown man still trying to convince other grown men that a kids movie wasn't a flop a year later. Also, ****ing LOL at having to deflect to a kids movie because you were getting embarrassed trying to convince other grown men the original OP racist movie wasn't a flop Disturbing and very p3do like.
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. yabbayabbas avatar
  1. yabbayabba
  2. **** your straps
  3. Join Date: Jun 2005
  4. Location: Burning down the belt warehouse
  5. Posts: 13,725
  6. Rep Power: 137,670
Quote
Bookmarks
Digg
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
Google
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts