Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Moaoziz t1_j7kghwj wrote

First I thought that Disney made less revenue than I expected. Then I saw that you split it up into Disney and Marvel.

Was there a reason for that? If Marvel is listed separately, then Lucasfilm should be listed separately, too.

263

AydonusG t1_j7kj4kt wrote

Disney, Marvel and 21CFox should be one, Warner Bros and New Line should be under Time Warner, Columbia should be under Sony. Then we have legendary and Ratpac, who collaborate on and fund a bunch of WB pictures. This chart is just inaccurate in total

164

-caniscanemedit- t1_j7kt20n wrote

Yeah average day on r/DataIsBeautiful is just a bunch of posts of poorly thought out charts. Nice graphic but if it’s nonsense, it’s nonsense.

38

UMPB t1_j7kuo6u wrote

But there are pictures of different movies in the bars on the chart and that's beautiful and also there are people watching it like a movie and a marquis so its beautiful truly the most beautiful of data

Data data on the wall who's the fairest of them all?

8

mavajo t1_j7klg2g wrote

Is it inaccurate, or is it just that given the dynamics it's hard to make a chart that everyone would be happy with, since everyone has their own preferences about how it should be displayed?

I'm sure if OP did it as you suggested, there would be just as many comments critiquing the fact that he merged them and saying they wish they could see them separately. This sub can be a bit hypercritical sometimes.

14

ConsequentialistCavy t1_j7kol3u wrote

They weren’t even consistent with their own methodology.

Star Wars is made by Lucasfilm, not Disney. But Disney owns lucasfilm. Like they own marvel.

19

mavajo t1_j7ku2iw wrote

I mean, is it inconsistent, or is it just a judgment call? I imagine dude was trying to thread the needle between a consistent methodology and interesting, digestible data. He could treat every subsidiary individually, but then you could have a highly fragmented list of players. He could have kept it top-level, but then you end up missing out on individual data for key entities. He probably split the difference to make it interesting to his audience while still providing relevant data.

This isn't a scientific study. It's a post on a sub about attractive presentations of data. I think OP succeeded.

−2

Inaksa t1_j7liwma wrote

True but this is about consistency, if marvel studios or 21st century fox are not counted as part of disney then lucasfilm movies shouldnt count. What is the criteria to split them?

1

Connect_Me_Now t1_j7kvj4u wrote

>Disney, Marvel and 21CFox

20 century fox should be different, as it was a different entity not too long ago.

0

rex_lauandi t1_j7ks1z9 wrote

The other thing is that Disney’s play isn’t even the box office. Last year Disney made over $28 b on parks alone. That’s a single year (these data are from multiple years, which is confusing me).

Licensing, products, and parks are the big deal for Disney.

The box office is just a big ad for us to want to consume those other things.

4

comicidiot t1_j7lagyr wrote

I guess it would come down to the production studio. Is Disney the production studio or Marvel Studios? But even that would be inconsistent with this graphic since Lucasfilm produced Star Wars, not Disney.

1

Male_strom t1_j8i43vr wrote

Lucasfilm would be 12.7b so interestingly, not on the list.
But should definitely be separate.

1

dadmda t1_j7kv4ho wrote

Why did you separate Disney, Marvel and Fox?

0