HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Problem not sharing your opinion, problem is terminology like "solid expansion" and "qualifying data" and now your "info"
The movie was out last week and its prospects (BO and expansion) were already discussed when it came out. Saying it only has 7 screens shows how much research you did b4 posting.....it has 23 theaters on the HSX moviestock page and BOM has had it at 23 from 8/31-9/6.
There is MCN data in FAGTC's tag. A simple BOM (Box Office Mojo) search shows actual data for the movie. (Tracking data is for pre-release......there is hard data out already so looking for tracking data made you look like a noob.....ditto to your anecdotal evidence)
Your 2nd post really came off as someone pushing the movie. Your "qualifying" data is anecdotal evidence.....if I said my 5 year old hemophiliac cousin wanted to see FAGTC does that mean all 5 year olds and all hemophiliacs want to see the film?......you come off like you're trying to push the stock (esp since it was out LAST WEEK) and manipulation is the BIG no-no
"Qualifying" data would be hard numbers. TPOSN did $7,400 PTA, FAGTC did $8,117 on their 4 days. Awesome for FAGTC right?....not really....It was a holiday and barely beat a wide release while playing in just 23 markets where it was supposed to do good numbers in.....that's something that someone that looks like they know what they're talking about says....a point, evidence and actual data from multiple sources (can you point to any of your posts that have all 3?)
You say "solid expansion" then used anecdotal evidense to "qualify" your statement.....that doesn't play here and does sound manipulative. You have to say something like Variety says 500 theaters by October to say "solid expansion"....if there is no hard evidence, people will call BS....and I think the response was mild.
Using your criteria:
You came off uninformed, you showed no sources, you didn't show math, and you aren't up to date b/c it came out last week and all the data you want is out there........you aren't in the wrong (since you probably aren't manipulating), but you aren't correct either b/c you were talking "solid expansion" and backed it with zero data and looked uninformed all at the same time.
Been here since Dec. 2000 and all posts like that get called on their BS non-data since I've been here. No offense.
Incidentally....the guy you think is ripping you....that's Razorhawk....the guy you are thanking in your profile.
Something has happened on the boards since I was gone this summer (this does not apply to poster/traders that know me... Sep 08, 16:49
Sorry, but your posts came off as uninformed and those types of posts get called out {nm} Sep 08, 17:27
yup, it kinda sucks these days. Sep 08, 17:30
MS, I am glad I am not the only one who noticed some change. Alf I may be uninformed that is my point about sharing Sep 08, 18:51
Problem not sharing your opinion, problem is terminology like "solid expansion" and "qualifying data" and now your "info" Sep 08, 19:29
Nope, not offended at all Sep 08, 21:04
KISS {nm} Sep 09, 02:04
and all is right in the world, how you been facto? {nm} Sep 09, 07:53
I'm alright, except struggling with a case of conjunctivitis, right now. First one in ages, all red eyes, etc. You? {nm} Sep 09, 22:23
alfpaul, what is your occupation? Just curious. Feel free to not answer if you don't want to. {nm} Sep 09, 08:33
Yours is one of the few posts that has content other than the tag line. {nm} Sep 09, 17:46