>Garogyles is the best show Disney TV had! >No it's Kim Possible! >No it's Tron Uprising!

>Garogyles is the best show Disney TV had!
>No it's Kim Possible!
>No it's Tron Uprising!
>No it's MotorCity!
Owl House is the best fricking show Disney TV ever had and Disney is now poorer without it. End of discussion.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yes. it's time to do away with Disney TV.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pack your bags, Owlgay.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well Disney is for chicks.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Kids didn't like it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The numbers say otherwise

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Just because their audience is made up of manchildren doesn't mean that they are literally kids.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's too bad, we would've gotten Amity action figures.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >afv
    jesus really?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no no no... frogsisters... all the fake statistics we posted didn't change the actual data, TOH beat us

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every time someone posts Parrot Analytics I genuinely wonder if they're able to read. Legitimately unable to actually read basic shit.

    Parrot analytics does NOT measure ratings, it does NOT measure how many people watched something across different platforms, it does NOT measure how many people "Want to watch" something, it does NOT measure anything that can actually be counted towards the success of a show such as merchandise or just plain old viewership numbers.

    It DOES measure Twitter posts, it DOES measure mentions(Indirectly included), on Youtube, it DOES measure blogposts from one off websites. Meaning that any company could boost their numbers by just plain tweeting a shitload from their personal account or fricking up so hard that the mention of "X's ratings are plummeting" counts towards "engagement". You are literally posting a website that tells you, plainly, that they're a dick measuring contest for something that we know, for a fact, does not correlate to success or people actually wanting the thing in any way. Yellowstone literally does not register on a single one of these and it absolutely shitstomped the ratings for any of them, period. Not even close, in the vast majority of cases. Stop giving your attention to Twitter's cheerleaders.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Just because their audience is made up of manchildren doesn't mean that they are literally kids.

      >oldgay mad nobody knows about their forgotten cartoon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They say it right on the damn website! They’re not hiding how they get their data, you’re not even being mislead, they’re not obscuring it, just read the damn website! Read you stupid bastard!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This is like the platonic ideal of pic related

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The replies to this suggests that people really don't understand how statistics and sampling works which really saddens me.
      t. Data analyst.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        See

        This is like the platonic ideal of pic related

        You're just coping

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Enlighten how Engagement through word of mouth (Which can be positive or negative, and could be just general discussion that includes things not related to the show IE: Flavor of the Month "fan" art) is a better sample than Disney's internal statistic of how many hours watched or how many people have "liked" it.

          TV ratings are irrelevant for anything not aimed at boomers and Yellowstone isn't a Disney show dumbo

          Same goes for you dipshit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >is a better sample than Disney's internal statistic of how many hours watched or how many people have "liked" it.
            Those statistics are as reliable as the Disney+ ratings that you gays lose your mind over just because owl house isn't in the top 30. It's not real or worth anything, in no way is Owl House bigger than Andor or Bluey, shows that have fans who aren't even into SW or cartoons.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Listen all I am arguing about is people using twitter discussion and non-platform related statistics to argue about popularity rather than what is being watched is fricking moronic. I don't have a horse in this race since I barely watch shit any more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hours watched is also irrelevant since binge watchers skew the numbers, what you want to look at is how many people watched the whole thing and then stayed subscribed to see the next season, which is what serialized shows excel at. Disney doesn't release numbers but online engagement is a good metric of a show's impact, to my knowledge there have been no highly discussed and talked about modern streaming shows that were failures.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              > to my knowledge there have been no highly discussed and talked about modern streaming shows that were failures.

              Then you’d be fricking wrong because Resident Evil was #1 across all platforms on Parrot Analytics for three weeks, and we now know that show was an absolute bomb. 1899, Inside Job, shit just look up “cancelled after 1 season”

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Resident Evil was being trashed by people that weren't watching it which was driving up raw engagement, not the same as positive discourse, I haven't seen anyone talk about Inside Job but Cinemaphile, I've never even heard of 1889, also both of those have incredibly generic names that I doubt can be tracked accurately.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              > but online engagement is a good metric of a show's impact
              Wrong. Incorrect. Complete and totally fricking Moronic of you to ever say that when we have such a massive and easily found dataset showing that online posts do not and never have correlated to actual hard numbers. Even the most basic glances would tell you that something like Birds of Prey, which had more than 4x the engagement, did not measure up to the much less talked about Bad Boys 4lyfe. Even if you just looked for a half of a second you’d be able to see that Yellowstone obviously has multitudes of impact more on a shitty streaming service barely anyone talks about compared to something ranking higher in every social media metric like Inside Job. Never mind TV ratings, streaming ratings are insanely high for it but because it’s for a demographic that doesn’t spend all day on Twitter you would never know. Social media gave hundreds if not thousands of more engagement and posting to Ant Man 3 than it ever did Avatar 2, and there just was no comparison. For fricks sake, Jordan Peeles name meant more than 10x the media postings of Nope compared to the other horror movie out the same year, Smile, which had next to nothing online, guess which one actually had an impact and succeeded on word of mouth.

              Twitter and YouTube vlogs don’t matter, proven, period.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      TV ratings are irrelevant for anything not aimed at boomers and Yellowstone isn't a Disney show dumbo

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why would people watch America's Funniest Home Videos on Disney+ when Youtube and TikTok exist?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *