HogansHero said: "10086Sundays said: "I'm sorry having your opinion, which you presented as fact, challenged has put in you in such a quandary."
1. I love having my opinion (or my facts) challenged. What I don't love are unintelligent challenges.
2. I did not present anything as fact, and I defy you to identify where I did. My issue was with folks hijacking a discussion of finances to state, for the umpteenth time, what their personal opinions on shows are. Who cares? (And secondarily with you for imagining that a confluence of result somehow validates the latter in some way.)"
By negating all posts in the thread, and responses to your positions, as illogical or unintelligent it would seem to mean you believe your opinion to be fact that cannot be challenged or proved incorrect. Your initial post included nothing that had not already been said by those you were claiming to be unintelligent or emotionally involved. When challenged, your response was merely a pithy one-liner, perhaps something less condescending and more measured and substantial would have changed that perception and invited the intelligent discussion you claim to want.
I would say this is/was one of the few threads here that hadn’t been hijacked by personal opinion and spiraled down into nothing more hurling insults about shows and posters. Or, even worse, asking what time to show up for SRO/Rush/Cancellation. As it is purely a reactionary topic, unfortunately that means there is going to be repetition of posts from week to week, unless something truly amazing or catastrophic happens numbers-wise.
While some may have included their opinion of a show as a small part of their response, the majority included mostly discussion of the numbers that we have available to us. The odd “die Charlie die” being an outlier. Of course, people are going to focus more on the shows they favor, but inclusion of their personal opinion does not invalidate their view of the facts/numbers. And, if you can't handle reading both, then ignore the thread.
The truth is none of us can really have an in depth discussion because we don’t have all the facts, such as weekly nuts, advance sales, or upcoming shows wanting a certain theater. All we can do is posit theories based on the current grosses and, anecdotally, things like seeing that a show that has 500+ tickets available on line for a large number of future dates is a cause for concern.
You claimed that intelligent discussion cannot involve emotion. I would say that this thread is proof of the opposite. For example, the shortcomings of a show like Groundhog Day are being readily acknowledged and discussed even by those who are fans of it and therefore have an emotional investment in how it does at the box office.
In fact, the entire field of film/theater/music theory and criticism is centered on scholarly work on a subject the historian/critic has an emotional attachment to. Would you agree?
Updated On: 6/20/17 at 01:57 PM
