4 ms·
I see that argument a lot but my thought is that people just aren't looking at a long enough time frame, I mean everyone was excited for fantastic beasts and it
by buscoquadnary 4y ago
I see that argument a lot but my thought is that people just aren't looking at a long enough time frame, I mean everyone was excited for fantastic beasts and it was considered okay, but it made a ton of money because of the brand. But then they made the second one which the general reaction to seems to be "What the HECK?" but it still had decent sells because people liked the brand and most importantly didn't realize they didn't like it until after they had seen it, now fantastic beasts 3 had incredibly low returns because all the brand had been burned at that point.
I think a huge problem is that especially, in the tech sector where things move so fast, people don't realize that many things, especially societal matters can move very slowly from a human perspective. I mean everyone how many big name tech companies do you know off the top of your head that are dying now, slowly, but still making money because of inertia? Some things just take a while someone who loves something can eventually have their love of that thing burned if it goes poorly for long enough.
- layer8 4y agoRight, it can go either way depending on inertia and on how bad it is for how long. But there is a large middle ground of “not good but still profitable”. Recent examples may be The Walking Dead and Star Wars. And I’d argue that for something to be financially successful it doesn’t need to be especially good, or loved by a large number of people, it just needs to be mildly entertaining and be marketed well.
- larrik 4y agoI mean, some could argue Star Wars hasn't been "good" in almost 40 years.