Did Disney make a clever move when they bought their own tickets?

Ahem...

You're talking about one of the issues portrayed in the article. I was talking about that:

"But production companies and distributors aren't just being ripped off, sometimes they're the ones overreporting sales and even hold "ghost screenings" with no viewers.

"It's mainly producers or distributors who want to pump up the numbers and drive awareness and desire to see their films. So that's sort of the opposite direction where they'll fraudulently report ticket sales or even pump up the numbers by buying out cinema halls," Cain said. "So you've got fraud going in both directions."

The quota is taken from the END of the article.

One thing: if you're gonna try to shame somebody accusing him of not reading his own linked article, at least you should make a minimum effort and read the WHOLE article fist, to be sure that it's not you the one who missed the point because you just read the beginning.

XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

I already explained it in the original message: this thread is not for debating negationism. It's for debating how clever or appropiate was the decision of Disney to buy tickets of their own movie.

Please, don't derail this thread.

https://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/studio-theaters_today.htm
"The studios in Hollywood before 1950 controlled massive theater chains, until the Supreme Court Paramount decision in the late 1940s forced the studios to sell their exhibition holdings. However, most of the major studios of eventually found ways to reenter the exhibition business when theater-owning restrictions were relaxed in the 1980s. It is interesting that many of the descendants of the grand old studio theater monopolies are today controlled by the major studios."

The entire premise of this thread is absurd. Disney is not buying tickets to its own movies. If that were the case, why didn’t they buy tickets to save their other so-called feminist movie “A Wrinke In Time”. Or any failed movie like Tomorrowland or John Carter. No, they will let the public decide if a movie will sink or swim - case closed.
Oh and btw, the only “proof” you have is at another country’s (China) box office which is not nearly as regulated as the USA. Besides, China’s government disincentives foreign box office receipts in favor of domestic box office receipts. Movie theaters are penalized when foreign (US or other countries) films exceed a certain percentage of total theatre sales. So if anything, Captain Marvel’s box office numbers may actually be higher (not lower) than what is being reported. Get educated on the facts and get a clue man.

• "You say there's an incentive to keep it alive but you can't explain how buying tickets keeps it alive."

It's obvious. Once the franchise is labeled as 'flop', it will become less trendy. People use to follow trends. Being labeled as 'failure' becomes a prophecy that use to fulfill itself. John Carter is a textbook example: it was labeled as 'failure' before being released or even being reviewed in pre-screenings. And it became a flop. It wasn't until some time after that that people started to realize that it was actually quite a good movie.

• "You actually kill your own point by bringing up Star Wars. If it was that easy to give life to something then Disney would've bumped up Solo's ticket sales to at least break even."

Well, people need to learn somewhere. Killing the Star Wars franchise must have been a good learning practice.