Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ok, interesting. Looking forward to the elaboration. Would like to hear about your gains and losses with BA.
Why don't you explain why you have an obsession/ vendetta with Brian Altounian? BA left PDOS over a year and half ago. You clearly have an axe to grind with him. What happened? Did he fire you?
The situation investors are posed with re: PDOS today is completely different than it was a year and a half ago when BA was last with the company. Folks are examining whether or not PDOS prospects going forward with a new team and a .0025 PPS is worth it for them. You keep railing in here about phantom boogie men and phantom issues.
You warn us about Brian Altounian non stop. He has nothing to do with PDOS, hasn't for 1.5 years.
You claimed in here that Wowio is Brian Altounian's shell corporation. It isn't. It's a real company in the ebook space with many employees.
You rail that PDOS isn't communicating with investors. They take calls and hold conference calls.
You rail that PDOS isn't answering questions. They take calls and answer investors' questions personally.
You rail that the conference calls don't answer questions. They answer YOUR question essentially regarding a reverse split. Not happening.
You warn and rail for months that a reverse split is coming. It doesn't come. And in their conference call they assert there will be no reverse split.
You rail that PDOS would benefit from a new executive management team. They have that now.
And so you come back to your Brian Altounian obsession again. What is this about for you, really? What did Brian Altounian, who has nothing to do with PDOS today, hasn't for the last 1.5 years and won't going forward, do to you? The vendetta is obvious. Let's hear it. Would be fun to know.
Personally, I think PDOS is set up for a good run here, long term. What happened while Brian Altounian was with the company years before I took an interest in it is irrelevant to me.
Cowboys & Aliens nominated for Excellence in Production Design by the Art Directors Guild:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Art-Directors-Guild-Awards-Single-Out-Anonymous-Cowboys-Aliens-Some-Other-Surprises-28628.html
C&A will have a huge run on blu-ray and dvd. It's #1 and yet we've had jokers come in here and claim there's no interest in this movie, no one likes this movie, it's too late, the sky has fallen, we're all doomed. The box was clearly just the beginning for this property. We now have blu-ray at #1 and there will be rentals, pay per per view, paid tv, network premiere all bringing more exposure to PDOS and stoking merchandise sales. And C&A is just the beginning for PDOS.
You can add the Playtech gaming license, slot machines, to that list of steps in the right direction.
I just saw it on Fox. The exposure does matter. Especially when PDOS is inking merchandise deals, ie slot machines.
Well, at least your referencing the $209 mil box now. But claim that somehow IMDB is contradicting itself by offering more up to date box info for a fee? Absurd. But the gross doesn't stop at $209mil. There's more international territories (incl Japan) to finish their run and then:
DVD Blu-ray sales
rentals
pay per view
netflix
TV licensing deals for paid cable
Network premiere deal
merchandise
This movie will make a lot more money. And has already made $40 mil more than your most recent article claims. There is no general rule of thumb, but when it's all said and done, it probably will gross double it's budget.
You are patronizingly insulting the very people you feign to protect. Good luck with that.
You write: "how many times have you or anybody on this site has invested in a stock because someone else on a msg board has said it's going to run? "
Well done. Keep hanging yourself.
Wrong. You have to pay for a subscription to IMDBpro. Keep hanging yourself. I've worked in the entertainment industry for 18 years. And its amazing to me that jokers like you come on an investor board like this and flood people with clueless nonsense, half-truths and BS nonstop. Stop desperately trying to mislead people. Point to facts or you'll keep exposing yourself and keep looking like a clown. The Cowboys & Aliens box is $209 mil and counting.
There's no over the top $200 mil ad budget. I heard a fifth to a quarter of that and pointed to an article that reports $30mil. But I'm not the one claiming in here that the movie didn't cover its ad budget, you are, so prove it. You haven't. You have a writer who claims to have input from a nameless, faceless "producer" who wasn't even a producer on the film who makes no claim to have any direct knowledge, making a wild guess. And you find that reliable? Anyone who works in the entertainment industry knows there's a cottage industry of people who want to assert this movie is a bomb and that movie is a hit and half the time they are full of it. That's why the writer of your movie review doesn't name his "producer" or any sources. In fact, everyone he references is anonymous. Ridiculous.
I'll go with $209mil box and counting because that's a fact. And I'm comfortable with the idea that given the budget ($163mil) C&A has essentially covered its production and ad budget at the box office because I've heard first hand what the ad budget actually was and seen that ballpark echo'd in print. And it's a small fraction of your ludicrous claims in here.
Idiotic logic. IMDB isn't contradicting itself. It offers a free site for fans (IMDB) and a paid site for entertainment industry professionals (IMDBpro) which has much more information.
You don't know the slightest thing about the entertainment industry, do you?
If you want the most current box office numbers, go with... IMDBpro. Cowboys & Aliens : $209M.
If you want old numbers because your argument is so weak, you have to constantly reference old, incorrect numbers, pull the numbers any fan can on the free version of IMDB (which is boxofficemojo).
Now, you've been busted over and over again on this, but feel free to keep making yourself look like a turkey.
The article you point to is $40 mil off. Cowboys & Aliens has grossed $209 mil, not $170 mil as the article you rest your argument off says.
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
So your article is a turkey. Try harder or try to explain why you and kimble tag team constantly at the oddest hours and why you mixed up and answered your own post at one point. See through.
That means huge upside. Undervalued. Great opportunity to buy low.
Sanli Pastore & Hill, Inc. valued PDOS at $170,403,000 minus net working capital, property and equipment, exiting debt and projected debt funding for a net total of $150,038, 000. SP&H used the American Society of Appraisers definition of fair market value.
Your link is a review from August. That's my point. Where's your substantiation for your nutty claim that the ad budget is $200 mil? You have none. Give me a name, reference a fact, you can't. I countered your claim with my article that says C&A had "an advertising budget of $30 million."
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
If you want to point to a review from August that claims C&A is not a success at $36 mil, I gave you a review from August that says C&A "succeeds" and is "box office champion" at $36 mil. My point is you are engaged in nonsense.
http://observernewspaperonline.com/2011/08/04/flicks-cowboys-aliens/
We can all find opinions all over the internet. Give me facts. Substantiate your over the top ad budget claim. Not with an anonymous turkey who is guessing. Give me the facts. You can't. Happy turkey week.
You don't have a source for your ad budget claim. What is the source's name? You don't have one.
In response to that question, you are posting a review essentially from Aug 2 that quotes a $36 mil box office. Are you kidding? There's nothing in this dated article about ad budget. You are trying to change the subject because you have no facts to back up your ad budget claim.
If you want to compare opinions, here's one from 11/19: "Cowboys & Aliens lives up to the Hype"
http://www.tmrzoo.com/2011/30392
Or "Cowboys & Aliens succeeds brilliantly"
http://io9.com/5826069/cowboys--aliens-will-show-you-action-like-youve-never-seen-it-before
Or: "current box office champion... Cowboys & Aliens succeeds"
http://observernewspaperonline.com/2011/08/04/flicks-cowboys-aliens/
Or "Cowboys & Aliens succeeds... hell of a ride... must see"
http://smartfilm.blogspot.com/2011/07/out-in-theaters-cowboys-aliens.html
Or "Cowboys & Aliens succeeds masterfully"
http://theakersquarterly.blogspot.com/2011/08/cowboys-aliens-reviewed-by-douglas-j.html
Or "Cowboys & Aliens succeeds... great action movie"
http://www.abcnews4.com/story/15178163/the-wild-wild-west-is-back-with-a-sci-fi-twist
What's your source's name? You don't have one. Because you don't have a source. The writer of that article doesn't have a source. The writer hides behind someone anonymous who is guessing and doesn't even claim to know for a fact. And that's my point. It's baloney.
Whether one goes by the $30 mil ad budget in this article:
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
Or by what I heard from the studio (about $45mil), either is a small fraction of your ludicrous 200 gazillion dollar advertising budget claim. And that is my point. What I have seen online in print and what I have personally heard blows a huge hole in your anonymous baloney claims.
Now, you can go by free sites rather than professional paid sites and you can live in denial of IMDBPro's $209mil box for C&A after you originally accepted it as fact, but that wouldn't be anything new for you. You do 180s and BS in here non stop as facts contradict you.
Old articles and old numbers and incorrect numbers regarding box office mean nothing. When you can point to an article that accounts for the C&A current box office of $209M, then I'll pay attention, not $36M or $129M or $170M but $209M. You're getting warmer but you're still $40M off:
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
Conjuncture by anonymous producers on advertising budget means nothing, as well, except that the writer got lazy and didn't do their homework. There's no hard claim on figures in that article. The "producer" wasn't even a producer on the film, has no name, makes no claim to have first hand info from the studio and is engaged in conjecture.
You are the one in here making the ludicrous claim that the advertising budget was $200M. You have no substantiation for that, no facts, just an anonymous source from a turkey of an article talking generalities. And you slap another $50mil onto this unsubstantiated claim just for the heck of it? Typical internet BS. Your BS.
If you go back to my original post on this, you'll find that I reference an article that states:
"Cowboys & Aliens had a reported advertising budget of $30 million."
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
A small fraction of your ludicrous $200M claim. How do you square that? Why the massive discrepancy?
BUT I ALSO ADDED FROM THE OUTSET that I personally heard $40 to $50 mil from the studio. And if one goes by either figure, C&A (at $209M) has cleared its production budget and ad budget combined.
The intellectual property library value ($150M) far outweighs the debt. The upside value is much greater. That's what matters to me. I'm not obsessed with the short term.
Once PDOS gets beyond the Incredible Hulk like impact of C&A to a break away hit, the value skyrockets. That's what I'm here for. The portfolio of properties PDOS has in its 5,500 title library. Marvel sold for $4 billion. Even if one considers PDOS a mini Marvel and even if it's upside is only $1 billion, a buy out will mean a massive jump in the PPS. With each green lit property the PPS will jump considerably for those who don't want to hold until a buy out. Stock is cheap at half a penny. Upside huge. You do what makes sense to you. If you think this company is not worth the time, then what are you doing here during the holidays no less? What is your game? I say buy low, hold. The entertainment industry is not a conservative play, obviously. Penny stocks are not a conservative play. They are not for people who aren't prepared to lose. I'm not here for a 5% payout. I'm here for huge upside. It's risk reward.
Cowboys & Aliens graphic novel is a NYT best seller.
You ask me to "Read C&A comic and look at the artwork alone and compare it to the artwork of any Marvel comic."
I have. It's a New York Times best seller. That matters more than my opinion. Have you seen the artwork for Unique, Atlantis Rising, Red Mantis? It's very cool in my opinion.
"VALUE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: $150,038,000M"
See above for the value of PDOS's library. There would be no great entrepreneurial industry in this country without the willingness and capital infrastructure here to deficit finance an entrepreneur's vision. The American economy would not be what it is if we all looked at capitol investments and the deficit financing behind companies as "obnoxious." We would not have invented and expanded the internet for consumer use in the way we have if we view this sort of thing as "obnoxious." If that's the way you look at things, then the automobile is obnoxious, our electrical grid is obnoxious, high speed rail is obnoxious, computers are obnoxious.
I'm aware of the facts and the realities associated with the company, its financing and its promise. To me there is great upside here as I dig their titles and premises and stories and I see an entertainment industry obsessed with comic book and graphic novel entertainment. Of course there's risk. There's no great upside without risk. But it's also a good opportunity to buy low.
hahahaaha. that is funny.
You make a wild claim that the advertising budget for Cowboys & Aliens is $200 mil. You have no source. None at all. No one in your articles knows or reports or even claims to know or references facts on the advertising budget. It's all preposterous conjecture and generalities..
This sounded dubious to me because I personally heard from the studio the advertising budget was significantly lower (about $40 to $50mil), then I find this...
"Cowboys & Aliens had a reported advertising budget of $30 million."
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
Now you want to compare Green Lantern and C&A.
C&A's box office has cleared its production budget by about 30% and counting.
$209 mil box office, 163 mil budget.
Green Lantern has cleared its production budget by only 4%.
$209 mil box office, $200 mil budget.
I'll take Cowboys & Aliens which performed significantly better and isn't done its run.
C&A has cleared its production budget and advertising budget combined.
Green Lantern has not.
I'll take Cowboys & Aliens over Green Lantern.
These articles are 4 months old and claim C&A only made $129mil worldwide because they are from AUGUST. Hahahahaha. That's $80 mil ago. Who are you trying to kid?
It's nearly December not August, C&A has made $209 mil:
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
There is no substantiation here for your claim the advertising budget was an absurd $200 mil. None. Zero. Zip. No facts. No reporting. No claims of a report. Just general industry conjecture by an unnamed producer who doesn't even claim to know what the C&A advertising budget was for a fact. And you expect us to buy that in here?
Again "Cowboys & Aliens had a reported advertising budget of $30 million."
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
That is much, much lower than your claims in here. How do your square that??
I personally heard $40 to $50 mil from the studio. That is much, much lower than your claims in here. So I knew your claims were ludicrous. Hahahaha.
Taking the long view, it matters. There are many factors which lead to huge swings in the PPS of penny stocks in the short term. The price drove well above .05 before dropping actually. And while you pose a fair question, the PPS has risen about 50% here in the last week, so, at the moment, it's not continuing to bleed out. But I'm not looking at the short term. In my view, the $209 mil presence of C&A not only opens up a large market for merchandise, it helps lay a solid foundation for the future of PDOS and it's huge intellectual property library. The movie attracted A listers in front of and behind the camera and it's headed towards Incredible Hulk numbers. It didn't look that way over the summer, but the international box has told a different story. Disney bought Marvel for $4 bil after Iron Man and Incredible Hulk. PDOS has many more TV and film projects in the pipeline. Once another project gets greenlit, the PPS will jump again. Adding a hit to C&A will mean a buy out. This is a very inexpensive stock now for a company with huge upside and three more years of funding. C&A is not MIB or Avatar, but it broke $200M so far. It's covered it's production budget and advertising. That's a solid start for PDOS' first summer event movie.
Cowboys & Aliens has grossed more than its actual production budget and advertising budget combined. You continue to point to an article from Aug 2 and old box office numbers on boxofficemojo re: box office success. And now on the advertising budget you are making up numbers out of whole cloth. You claim $150 - $200 mil was spent on advertising. That's ludicrous. What is your source? This article, written by a very tough critic of the movie no less, reports"Cowboys & Aliens had a reported advertising budget of $30 million."
http://cynicritics.com/2011/08/04/review-cowboys-aliens/
That's "$30 million." Let me repeat, "$30 million." Not $200 mil. "$30 million."
Now, I heard it was actually more and in the $40 to $50 mil range from friends at the studio. So even if we assume it was on the high end of an advertising budget, Cowboys & Aliens has still grossed more than its production budget (163M, 150M after tax breaks) and advertising budget (40-50M) combined, as IMDBpro reports $209M. Given this, C&A is a success according to you. And now that it has cleared budget and advertising budget, it will eventually profit as more international box office numbers roll in (ie. Japan, possibly China, etc) in addition to DVD blu-ray sales, rentals, pay per view, and TV licensing deals bring in more than another $100M.
At one point in here, you acknowledged when seeing the IMDBpro reference that the movie cleared $200M. Now you are flipping on that again by clinging to old numbers. And making up absurd advertising numbers. As far as boxofficemojo is concerned, you get what you pay for. It's a free site with old numbers. To get IMDBpro numbers you pay for a subscription. Or go with a 15 day trial to check the numbers for yourself:
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
IMDBPro: Cowboys & Aliens: $209mil at the worldwide box office and counting:
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0409847/
The fact that you have to cling to old numbers speaks for itself.
C&A: $209 mil box, $163 mil budget. Still in theaters in several foreign territories. Still waiting for Japan's totals.
Incredible Hulk: $254 mil box, $150 mil budget. (IMDBpro, the industry standard)
But one is a success and one is a flop accord to you. ???
Again, C&A is not listed among the "flops" referenced in the very article you claim substantiates that it is a "flop." You are the one referencing the article, so it better substantiate your claim, not undermine it.
Do the math. Your article lists Mars Needs Moms as a "flop": $39M gross, $150M budget. It does not list C&A as a flop: $209M gross, $163M budget. Because it is not a flop. Mars is $110M in the negative (box office to budget), a flop. C&A is $50M in the positive and counting, not a flop, not referenced as a flop in your article. But ten other movies which all lost money are.
If you are going to try to substantiate your claims in here by referencing articles, you better do your homework, or it exposes you.
Here is the flop list referenced to and linked to your article right here:
http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/movie-report-card-10-biggest-205951
C&A is at $210 mil and counting. This is utter nonsense that has all been refuted and eviscerated before as both wrong and, at least partially irrelevant. The article you yourself pointed to listed ten flops in 2011, C&A wasn't even on the list. Films that were made for a similar budget of $150mil that did $25mil, etc. Every film on that list made well below it's production budget. But C&A is more than $50 mil above its production budget at the box office alone.
You agreed Incredible Hulk was a success at the box office at $254 mil total. But somehow C&A at $210 mil and counting is a flop? Square that one. You never have. We all know Disney bought Marvel for $4 BIL after the Incredible Hulk. It was enough of a success for them to pull the trigger. C&A will see more box office revenues, have a very good run on DVD Blu-ray, rentals, pay per view, television licensing, network premiere. Those are all revenues to come.
But whatever money the studios and theatres make or lose is, at least partially irrelevant, as PDOS didn't fund the movie. The $210 mil is significant in that it shows huge exposure for PDOS and creates a marketplace for the merchandise which PDOS owns. C&A is not Avatar. It is not MIB. No one is claiming it is. But to assert C&A is a flop when it is doing nearly Incredible Hulk box office, and as a new title, is absurd. It's desperate. Point to all the articles you want from 4 months ago when the total box office was $30mil. It's 7 times that now. You yourself asserted that C&A would never even gross its production budget of $160mil. Impossible to you. Well, it's $50 mil beyond that. So now you are moving your own goal posts.
You claim no one likes this movie. I thought it was very good. The most fun I had at the theatre this summer. But our subjective opinions are irrelevant. I'll take $210 mil and counting. I'll take users on Amazon giving the dvd blu-ray 7 out of 10 stars. That's a successful movie. That isn't a 1-2 star flop. That's 7 stars. That's reality. People like this movie. You all expected PDOS to fold. Have been preaching that in here for months. That it was closing up shop. Everybody's gone. All lies. It's funded for the next three years. Many more television and feature film projects to come. And PDOS, with a massive library of over 5000 titles, will eventually see its own buy out. Great opportunity to buy low here and take the long view.
Grey Legion -- another great PDOS premise...
Grey Legion created by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg
A top-secret agency has found a way to force ghosts to carry out covert missions... whether they want to or not. Now one of these unwilling spies will do anything to reclaim his soul—and be reunited with the love he thought he had lost forever.
There are many of these. Atlantis Rising is another... a superior and more environmentally civilization exists beneath the sea. When Kimble and his cohorts on the surface threaten their world with pollution, Atlantis attacks. ;)
With an influx of $10Mil, another three years funded, and merchandising revenue eventually coming in from Cowboys & Aliens ($209M box office world wide), PDOS has a very bright future and plenty of time to break a MIB type success at the box office. There are 5000 titles here and a great portfolio of projects in development. Breaking $200M at the box office alone on PDOS' first summer event movie is a good start. The big hit will trip a buy out.
Well, this blows a huge hole in the specious to begin with theory that PDOS was folding. It's just the opposite, actually.
"Dutchess managing director Douglas Leighton said the company believed in Platinum's 'efforts to grow the company.'"
"Platinum raises $10 mil from Dutchess to grow"
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046179?refCatId=14
As PDOS slowly rolls out their merchandising effort for C&A, there are clearly engaged in a major effort to develop several of their other titles.
Very cool. I'm psyched to see the extended version of Cowboys & Aliens. PDOS will benefit from more and more global exposure for their brand and merchandise.
Gee, this is a board for PDOS. PDOS didn't finance C&A but they own the merchandise. They take no hit on the production budget or the marketing budget for C&A, but they benefit from all that exposure. I like that deal a lot. That's a sweet deal the CEO pulled off.
And when it comes to whether or not C&A is a flop, I'll consult current figures, rather than the opinions of those who try to evaluate C&A's numbers from THREE MONTHS AGO on Aug 2, the day that article was printed.
Again, how is Incredible Hulk at $254M enough of a success to justify Disney pulling the trigger on a $4 BIL buy out of Marvel, but somehow C&A is a flop at $209 mil and counting??
I read this article FROM AUG 2 months ago before C&A broke $100 mil domestic and another $100 mil foreign to get to $209 mil. That's a far cry from the $36M, this Aug 2 article references, which in fact was the #1 open that weekend.
No one's claiming C&A is Avatar. But it's not a flop like Moms for Mars which has a $110M loss from budget to box office. C&A is $50M up, budget to box, and closing in on Incredible Hulk numbers $254 mil which you acknowledge is a success.
So have you answered my questions and to your own argument, yet? What will Japan bring in box office for C&A? How is Hulk a success and C&A a flop?
Read your deleted posts? Posts that have been deleted due to all the personal attacks? A little hard to do that. Why don't you answer my questions, answer to the arguments you started in here, finish what you started. What will Japan bring? Super 8 did $21M, Battle LA has done $9M after 5 weeks. What will C&A do in Japan, given those close comparables? I'll guess $15M. You?
And how do you define flop vs success, given that you view Hulk as a success at $254 mil but C&A as a flop at $209M and counting, yet to add Japan and finish its international run?
Care to finish your argument or are you pleading uncle again?
The CEO lent the company over $3mil. That's commitment. I like that kind of CEO. I guess you are saying that he's stealing from himself. Well done. You're kimbling again. Can't help yourself, I guess.
What do you expect from Japan? A couple bucks? Super 8 did $21M. Battle LA has done $9M after 5 weeks. Super 8 did a little better than C&A domestic, Battle LA did a little worse than C&A domestic. Both are listed as comparables at boxofficemojo. You are the one who challenged the notion Japan could add anything to C&A's total. I'm going with $15M, splitting the difference between close comparables. You dropping this now that I'm referencing facts and figures?
At $15M, that would bring C&A to $225M with more territories to finish. That's just $25M from Hulk right there, so explain yourself. One's a flop and one's a success somehow, only $25M apart? Or do you need to drop this thread along with the rest of your arguments? You are the one raising these arguments. Man up. What will Japan add? How do you see a $225M movie as a flop and a $250M as a success?
That's libel, kimble. CEO lent the company money and is slowly recouping his loan. It's libel to falsely accuse someone of criminal activity. This libelous claim has been debunked over and over again in here. But maybe you have nowhere to go now that Cowboys & Aliens has grossed $209M worldwide and has much in the pipeline to exploit the C&A franchise as well as over 5,500 more titles.
"crybaby"? "stupid"? "crazy"? care to share anymore juvenile personal attacks? has the scrutiny of your claims gotten under you skin? too difficult to make a rationale argument in here without childish insults? don't enjoy being exposed so you have to resort to this sort of thing? need anger management?
you are the one who claimed it was "highly unlikely" C&A would break $200M at the box office. it did.
you are the one who claims Hulk is a success at $254M but somehow C&A is a flop at $209M and counting.
you are the one who referenced an article calling C&A a "flop" but that claim is no where to be found in your article, not even on the list of flops referenced in the article.
you're the one who claimed C&A was a big financial set back for the "company" as you put it but now concede that company isn't PDOS.
If you are going to make a bunch of unverified or misleading claims in here, you better be able to take some scrutiny without resorting to insults, it only further exposes how specious your claims are.
To answer your question as to what I expect the Japanese box office to report, let's look at comparables Battle: Los Angeles and Super 8. Battle LA did worse than C&A domestic: 83M vs 100M. Super 8 did better: 127M vs 100M. So I expect C&A to end up in between in Japan. Super 8 did $21M in Japan. Battle LA opened in Japan in Sept and has reported 9M after 5 weeks and counting. So I expect C&A to hit $15M no problem, maybe higher given the big names. That brings C&A to about $225M worldwide with many more territories to complete their run. Still a flop at only $25M less than Hulk which is a success accd to you? What's your cut off for flop vs success? Remember the flops referenced by your original article all lost huge money, Moms for Mars on that list lost $110M. With Japan, C&A is a $75M gain, budget to box office.
Right. When the console video game is announced, this PPS will shoot up. PDOS is a bargain right now at less than a penny. I'd love to add the Cowboys & Aliens Xbox game to my library. That one would be a total blast as a both a first person shooter and in adventure/story mode. And news like that is all this PPS needs to bolt up. All it will take is one headline like that. A headline like that is coming. I think those holding will be very pleased and those buying in at these levels will have bought extremely low and made an outstanding investment.
Atlantic Rising. Add that awesome premise to the mix. A technologically superior, more environmentally sound civilization exists unbeknownst to us beneath the sea. When their environment becomes imperiled by our pollution, they rise up out of the ocean depths and attack. That's incredible. That project has a good buzz in the industry, and I will bet that's the next big summer event movie from PDOS.
You are $15mil off, fudging IMDBpro numbers.
IMDBpro: Hulk: $254M, C&A $209M
That's only $45 mil apart, not $60 mil as you claim (and you are referencing "my" numbers).
C&A still has Japan and several international territories to complete its run.
So how is one a "flop" and the other a "success" according to you? Please explain your logic.
C&A is bound to get close to $250M, then what? It's a flop success, like Hulk?