Pressure mounts on Kathleen Kennedy to step down as head of Lucas Film?

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

It's production costs were over $250m before promotion is taken into account. It's absolutely a box-office flop.

Even Scott Mendelson over at Forbes who's staunchly pro Kennedy Lucasfilm is calling it a bomb.

Crap, a lad at Forbes is calling it a flop so it must be.

Solo is projected to lose about 50 million in theatres. It is already in profit once you factor in streaming rights, broadcast right, rentals and home media sales.

Arne_Saknussem

Deleted User wrote: »

Crap, a lad at Forbes is calling it a flop so it must be.

Solo is projected to lose about 50 million in theatres. It is already in profit once you factor in streaming rights, broadcast right, rentals and home media sales.

It's box office loss will be a lot more than $50m.

Sad Professor

Lets say Solo cost no more than 350m including marketing. It made 370m, of which the studio takes about half. That's at least 185m they made back. Definitely a box office flop, but not so bad that it won't eventually make its money back. Even Waterworld made a profit on video and that was in the 90s.

Arne_Saknussem

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

It's box office loss will be a lot more than $50m.

How do you come to that figure, it's currently sitting on $368,879,115 and it's budget and marketing is estimated to be around 425 to 450 million so it is looking at most like a 50 million dollar loss which it has already regrouped thanks to sales of streaming and broadcast rights.

Sad Professor

It's more than 50m, Darko. Films generally have to make twice their budget to break even at the box office as exhibitors take about half the gross. I still agree with you that it will make its money back eventually, though.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's more than 50m, Darko. Films generally have to make twice their budget to break even at the box office as exhibitors take about half the gross. I still agree with you that it will make its money back eventually, though.

I understand how it works, I was deliberately stating it as, simply because we all know that no one would be calling it a flop if it cost 450 and made 500 million even though it technically is. Far too many people these days are box office experts based on the fact that they have read a few rants online.

Exhibitors generally receive 40% of a ticket sale these days though some studios, Disney, in particular, insist that they actually get more and are routinely demanding 65% of each cinema ticket as well as demanding that their releases play on the biggest screen in each cinema for a guaranteed number of weeks. For the Last Jedi it was the largest screen for 5 weeks and 65% cut of ticket sales which is why a number of chains int he US refused to screen it initially.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

He doesn't fix anything. He cuts out some stuff he personally didn't like. In the case of Luke and the lightsaber, in a very obvious and messy way.

Yeah, it's pretty awful - based on that, he's in a few swift edits robbed the film of much of its dramatic stakes, characterisation and made the whole thing a whole lot less interesting.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The Last Jedi is to me, an excellent film in its own right.... but just an OK to decent Star Wars film.

This is interesting to me, because I feel The Last Jedi actually has a far deeper understanding of a lot of the ideas floating the series around then many give it credit for... indeed, it expands on them quite significantly.

Johnson is fascinated with many of themes and ideas that have defined the films thus far. Family and legacy has obviously been a key driver in almost all the films to date, particularly the original trilogy. TLJ takes that in a lot of new directions that very clearly reflect on what the series has had to say to date. He makes Rey's story one that mirrors but also departs the journey both Anakin and Luke went on when we followed them at a similar point in their development. Similarly, Kylo's journey shows a character actively trying to replicate his grandfather, but spiralling down a different path completely.

When it comes to lore, I also think Johnson sat down and properly fleshed out his thoughts on what a lot of the ideas floating around represent - even to the degree of critiquing some of them (he has little tolerance for some of the spiritual or - heaven forbid - pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that has bogged down the series at the times). His montage 'explaining' the Force is probably the definitive cinematic explanation of it, with visual ideas backing up the exposition. Similarly, it allows Luke to become the perfect Jedi Yoda described in the Empire Strikes Back ("A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack"). The 'badass' projecting Luke we see in his final scenes here is a more fitting destination for the character than the lightsaber-wielding 'badass' some others have called for. Even if you look at something like The Holdo Maneuver (which I am well aware has become a sticking point for some) - that again takes a concept familiar from the series and takes it somewhere new. Same thing for lightsabers - that fight in the throne room is a very different take on lightsaber combat than we've seen in the main series to date (as emotionally and physically draining as past fights have been, don't get me wrong!).

Even stylistically, TLJ is probably the most thoughtful successor to the film George Lucas made in 1977. They're both cine-literate creations, loaded with deeply-rooted nods and allusions to cinema history. TLJ, of course, has several additional decades of cinema to draw from, not least the series it exists in (Luke's final sunset shot, for example, is a brilliant visual echo that completes his journey in a purely visual way).

The Force Awakens is obviously a Star Wars film, in that it militantly adheres to what a Star Wars films looks and feels like to the point it has been both criticised and praised as a glorified remake. The Last Jedi has a notably different feel, and in some ways definitely feels like a surprise departure from what we've seen to date. But what I appreciate about it - as someone who loved Star Wars as a kid but have naturally grown out of it over the years - is that it engages with the ideas at the centre of the series more robustly and thoughtfully than any of the films that have come before.

I fully understand and respect that others feel differently, I hasten to add - while I may be baffled by the sheer, sustained vitriol from some quarters, I can understand why many were disappointed or frustrated by the directions and interpretations chosen. But for me Johnson made the decisions that were necessary to push the series forward, while engaging in all manner of fascinating ways with the legacy he inherited. It is, IMO, a definitively Star Wars film in a deeper, more interesting way than TFA is.

RayCun

I think there are lots of problems with TLJ - scenes where the intent is clear but don't come off as strongly as they should. But the central relationship between Rey and Ren is handled brilliantly, the scenes when either of them are on screen really work and they carry the movie.

A lot of people seem to have wanted a movie that carried on straight after Return of the Jedi, ignoring the difficulties with that idea.

On the real world level, there was 30 years between RotJ and TFA. No studio was going to make actors in their 50s and 60s the stars of a blockbuster trilogy. Hamill doesn't have the range, Ford wouldn't have done it, and Fisher was not going to be cast as a heroine

Dramatically, those characters have had their story. Time for a new set of characters.

The new trilogy had to create a situation where new characters would be faced with equally serious problems. And the obvious question would be, why not let Luke, Leia, and Han solve those problems? The last Jedi, the general/princess/diplomat leader of the rebellion, and the smuggler guy - they ended RotJ as popular, powerful heroes, so they would be better placed to handle crises than anyone else around.

One solution would be to remove them from the picture completely. Set the new trilogy 200 years after the end of the last one, problem solved. But not an option for people making expensive movies. So they had to be sidelined, but central. Visible and important, but not the main actors in the story.

In particular, Luke, if he had continued progressing for 30 years the way he had in the original trilogy, would have completely unbalanced the story - any challenge Rey or Finn could face would be trivial for him. Anything that would be challenging for him would be impossible for anyone else. So whatever he was doing would be automatically the most important thing in the movie. (The Spiderman movie had a similar issue with Tony Stark but handled it brilliantly)

Making Luke, Leia, and Han the centre of the problem solves all of this. Why is Luke not a super jedi? Because he made a mistake. Why is Han not sitting around in luxury? Because he's running away from that mistake. Why is Leia still fighting? Because of that mistake. Who is everyone, including our new heroes, fighting? Hello, that mistake. (and who gets a strong narrative arc as a result? Mister stop ****ing calling me a mistake)

pixelburp

I liked Last Jedi despite its problems and ultimately, I'd rather a blockbuster shoot for the moon and partially fail than watch another limp, insipid piece of garbage like The Mummy or Jusitice League, slumming it with brazen, cynical mediocrity.

Last Jedi was many things but not mediocre and its biggest crime was taking narrative and stylistic risks with the closest thing to a pop culture holy cow, constipated with its own mythological status.

Penn

Absolutely genius poster created for the man-babies who want to make their own remake of The Last Jedi

RayCun

Love the Snoke Powerpoint