Upload
Login or register

iFail

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 19
Date Signed Up:11/24/2009
Last Login:12/05/2016
Location:Scotland
Stats
Comment Ranking:#12677
Highest Content Rank:#1314
Highest Comment Rank:#268
Content Thumbs: 4410 total,  5059 ,  649
Comment Thumbs: 21345 total,  22909 ,  1564
Content Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 144 Content: Faptastic → Level 145 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 88% (880/1000)
Level 320 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:11
Content Views:6003
Total Comments Made:2043
FJ Points:8784

latest user's comments

#32 - I don't understand - what does it mean?  [+] (2 replies) 08/03/2016 on Fuck English 0
#54 - thulsadoombot (08/03/2016) [-]
Buffalo = A city in New York, proper noun
buffalo =another name for bison, noun
buffalo = to confuse or intimidate, verb
So without breaking it down too much, it means "Bison from Buffalo that are bullied by other bison from Buffalo, also bully bison from Buffalo." In other words, some linguist back in the day was a fucking dick by leaving out helpful words like "which" and "that" in order to make a point to his other lame linguist friends.
User avatar
#58 - iFail (08/03/2016) [-]
Extraordinary. Thank you.
#72 - I didn't realise that's why they didn't incorporate marketing …  [+] (2 replies) 07/31/2016 on SFWs destroyed for eternity +1
User avatar
#73 - angelusprimus (07/31/2016) [-]
The thing is, it was a Sony's tentpole movie for this summer. The movie that was supposed to make enough money to back iffier projects.
Now when a sideline movie just makes money back, that's considered pretty good, but when a tentpole movie barely makes its budget back, that's considered a disaster.
That is because the studio's entire financial network is tied around the tentpoles. Sony is going to take a big hit on this, because they were banking on this movie making them at least 100 million, in their financial projections.
If their other movies don't overpreform, they are in trouble.
User avatar
#81 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Yeah I know, I'm saying the current situation isn't great - it's just not as bad as this post and the rest of the SJW-bashing internet is making it out to be. But regardless, we're counting our chickens before they roost - I still think this could potentially bring profit for Sony before the end of the year.
I know what you're saying, they really need to make lots of money on this film in particular for smaller films - but they've already had one small project earlier this year that overstepped the mark big time, and they've still got a stacked pipeline with 'Sausage Party' and 'The Magnificent Seven'.

Sony directors are thinking; "this is not great, but it's not the end of the world." We'll wait and see what the final figures are in a few months time.
#52 - Well truth be told, I had that in mind but I was struggling to…  [+] (7 replies) 07/31/2016 on SFWs destroyed for eternity 0
User avatar
#70 - angelusprimus (07/31/2016) [-]
Ok, first MM:FR had a budget of 150 million. And it made 378 million dollars.
www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=furyroad.htm
There is a reason why marketing is not calculated into budget costs, and that is because studio does not pay for marketing alone (distributers and theaters and those that big on merch pay their share) so neither MM nor ghostbusters marketing price is really an issue.
And problem with Ghostbusters is twofold.
1: Huge drop each weekend. It loses over 50% viewership each weekend, and next weekend its also losing more than half of theaters.
2: Abysmal showing overseas.

Mad Max was too expensive, but it ended up making money for the studio. Not a shitload of money, but it made money.
Studio gets back half of the ticket sales.
So far Ghostbusters are still costing the studio 65 million dollars. It would have to make another 130 million to make up the difference. As things are going now, there is almost no chance that will happen.
User avatar
#72 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
I didn't realise that's why they didn't incorporate marketing costs into the budget - thanks.
But Mad Max: Fury Road also lost about 50% viewership per weekend throughout it's first month? (In accordance with the figures in your link)

I'm not really following your last paragraph there - so studios regain 50% of the box office gain? In other words the box office gain has to be twice the budget in order for them to break even? If so, I wouldn't be surprised to see 'Ghostbusters' clear the $288m mark with their current rate of financial success. I still think treating the film like a flop is unprecedented.
User avatar
#73 - angelusprimus (07/31/2016) [-]
The thing is, it was a Sony's tentpole movie for this summer. The movie that was supposed to make enough money to back iffier projects.
Now when a sideline movie just makes money back, that's considered pretty good, but when a tentpole movie barely makes its budget back, that's considered a disaster.
That is because the studio's entire financial network is tied around the tentpoles. Sony is going to take a big hit on this, because they were banking on this movie making them at least 100 million, in their financial projections.
If their other movies don't overpreform, they are in trouble.
User avatar
#81 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Yeah I know, I'm saying the current situation isn't great - it's just not as bad as this post and the rest of the SJW-bashing internet is making it out to be. But regardless, we're counting our chickens before they roost - I still think this could potentially bring profit for Sony before the end of the year.
I know what you're saying, they really need to make lots of money on this film in particular for smaller films - but they've already had one small project earlier this year that overstepped the mark big time, and they've still got a stacked pipeline with 'Sausage Party' and 'The Magnificent Seven'.

Sony directors are thinking; "this is not great, but it's not the end of the world." We'll wait and see what the final figures are in a few months time.
User avatar
#62 - skulblacka (07/31/2016) [-]
I agree except that Mad Max Fury Road shot for the moon with practical effects which made the budget higher than necessary, but the practical effects made the movie. Ghostbusters is in the same boat, but not for something like a high budget, bad acting or a poor screenplay. Ghostbusters got ruined by SJW's plain and simple. I might have given it a shot if it wasn't for the movement that was made behind it.
User avatar
#64 - skulblacka (07/31/2016) [-]
Good god im stoned, i posted the end of a tangent for my point because i was thinking my way through it, god im retarded.
User avatar
#71 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Hahah, nah it's cool, I'm with you - I think the movement behind Ghostbusters was pretty pathetic and I don't see why they'd want to do it like that considering how risky re-boots are already. That being said, I did watch Mad Max and I didn't like it. But, I do still think Ghostbusters is on financial track for some sort of recovery, however only time will tell.
#37 - 'Destroyed' is a bit of an overstatement - really comparing ap…  [+] (13 replies) 07/31/2016 on SFWs destroyed for eternity +1
#89 - anon (07/31/2016) [-]
The director himself stated to NYT that the movie needs 500 million for profit. Right now it's only on track to recoup its basic budget.
User avatar
#100 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Can you link me to that article please? I'm struggling to find it.
User avatar
#47 - skulblacka (07/31/2016) [-]
Your forgetting the extra 140 million ghostbusters spent on marketing, so no they wont be making a profit.
User avatar
#52 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Well truth be told, I had that in mind but I was struggling to find the marketing costs for 'Deadpool' online for a point of comparison - so I just drew the line where this content did.

Granted, that's 'Ghostbusters' biggest downfall - however, they're still doing relatively ok with the inclusion of marketing and distribution costs. Using, 'Mad Max: Fury Road" for a more appropriate point of comparison.

MM:FR had a total cost of $200m (budget + marketing), and by day 17, it had made $116,467,770 - that's around 58% of the film's total cost.
Whereas, on day 17 of Ghostbusters, it has made $158.3m of $284m - which is around 55% of the film's total cost.

Now at the time, Forbes remarked that Mad Mad: Fury Road was "too expensive, but not really a flop". But hey, after a few months it came back and smashed the total cost - so far, I think Ghostbusters is following a similar trend and that it will be in total profit by the end of the year.

I know people want this film to fail, and I kind of was one of them, but I don't think it's been as drastic a failure as everybody has made out to be. It's certainly not a 'Sahara' or a 'Water World'.
User avatar
#70 - angelusprimus (07/31/2016) [-]
Ok, first MM:FR had a budget of 150 million. And it made 378 million dollars.
www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=furyroad.htm
There is a reason why marketing is not calculated into budget costs, and that is because studio does not pay for marketing alone (distributers and theaters and those that big on merch pay their share) so neither MM nor ghostbusters marketing price is really an issue.
And problem with Ghostbusters is twofold.
1: Huge drop each weekend. It loses over 50% viewership each weekend, and next weekend its also losing more than half of theaters.
2: Abysmal showing overseas.

Mad Max was too expensive, but it ended up making money for the studio. Not a shitload of money, but it made money.
Studio gets back half of the ticket sales.
So far Ghostbusters are still costing the studio 65 million dollars. It would have to make another 130 million to make up the difference. As things are going now, there is almost no chance that will happen.
User avatar
#72 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
I didn't realise that's why they didn't incorporate marketing costs into the budget - thanks.
But Mad Max: Fury Road also lost about 50% viewership per weekend throughout it's first month? (In accordance with the figures in your link)

I'm not really following your last paragraph there - so studios regain 50% of the box office gain? In other words the box office gain has to be twice the budget in order for them to break even? If so, I wouldn't be surprised to see 'Ghostbusters' clear the $288m mark with their current rate of financial success. I still think treating the film like a flop is unprecedented.
User avatar
#73 - angelusprimus (07/31/2016) [-]
The thing is, it was a Sony's tentpole movie for this summer. The movie that was supposed to make enough money to back iffier projects.
Now when a sideline movie just makes money back, that's considered pretty good, but when a tentpole movie barely makes its budget back, that's considered a disaster.
That is because the studio's entire financial network is tied around the tentpoles. Sony is going to take a big hit on this, because they were banking on this movie making them at least 100 million, in their financial projections.
If their other movies don't overpreform, they are in trouble.
User avatar
#81 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Yeah I know, I'm saying the current situation isn't great - it's just not as bad as this post and the rest of the SJW-bashing internet is making it out to be. But regardless, we're counting our chickens before they roost - I still think this could potentially bring profit for Sony before the end of the year.
I know what you're saying, they really need to make lots of money on this film in particular for smaller films - but they've already had one small project earlier this year that overstepped the mark big time, and they've still got a stacked pipeline with 'Sausage Party' and 'The Magnificent Seven'.

Sony directors are thinking; "this is not great, but it's not the end of the world." We'll wait and see what the final figures are in a few months time.
User avatar
#62 - skulblacka (07/31/2016) [-]
I agree except that Mad Max Fury Road shot for the moon with practical effects which made the budget higher than necessary, but the practical effects made the movie. Ghostbusters is in the same boat, but not for something like a high budget, bad acting or a poor screenplay. Ghostbusters got ruined by SJW's plain and simple. I might have given it a shot if it wasn't for the movement that was made behind it.
User avatar
#64 - skulblacka (07/31/2016) [-]
Good god im stoned, i posted the end of a tangent for my point because i was thinking my way through it, god im retarded.
User avatar
#71 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
Hahah, nah it's cool, I'm with you - I think the movement behind Ghostbusters was pretty pathetic and I don't see why they'd want to do it like that considering how risky re-boots are already. That being said, I did watch Mad Max and I didn't like it. But, I do still think Ghostbusters is on financial track for some sort of recovery, however only time will tell.
User avatar
#42 - distortedflare (07/31/2016) [-]
You really think fanboys were not sharpening their cosplay swords when dead pool was announced?
User avatar
#44 - iFail (07/31/2016) [-]
That's what I was saying; it's an unfair comparison since the idea of an all-female 'Ghostbusters' caused controversy and the masses were sceptical of it's quality from the start.
Whereas, millions upon millions of fans have waited a long time for a 'Deadpool' film.
#71 - >Eye-tracking virtual reality tech, capable of reading emot…  [+] (6 replies) 07/31/2016 on 29 - 7 - 16 +6
#138 - thegamepixel (08/01/2016) [-]
i need to get the sauce for this
#89 - thestitch (07/31/2016) [-]
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT
I don't even want sauce, it's horrifying.
User avatar
#101 - danrmanalt (07/31/2016) [-]
its like an art project or some shit i forget, just a costume or cgi rendering tho i forget
#97 - deutschblut (07/31/2016) [-]
I love Gary Busey...
#100 - thestitch (07/31/2016) [-]
He's magical
#102 - deutschblut (07/31/2016) [-]
Quite