Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Oh great, another "this movie was unsuccessful because I didn't like a different movie that was extremely successful" argument.

    If everyone hated TLJ, how did it make so much money?

    If fanboys hated TLJ because of Rian Johnson and it wasn't reverential enough, why is Solo, a movie directed by someone uncontroversial and with no controversy about SJWs, not a roaring success?

    The argument that people were turned away by the flaws of TLJ would only work if Solo was a similar film. But everything that people hated in TLJ (while flocking to see it) is absent from Solo.

    The argument is ridiculously weak.


  • Options
    #213
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    RayCun wrote: »
    Oh great, another "this movie was unsuccessful because I didn't like a different movie that was extremely successful" argument.

    "this movie was unsuccessful because a lot of fans really didn't like the preceding movie in the franchis"
    RayCun wrote: »

    If everyone hated TLJ, how did it make so much money?

    Another strawman here, i said a lot of fans didn't like it. Fans have to see a film before they decide if they like it or not, and they flocked to see Hamill on screen properly for the first time in 40 years.

    TLJ opening weekend was 89% of TFA's, it finished it's run at 64% of TFA's total gross. A lot of repeat viewers didn't go back.

    RayCun wrote: »

    If fanboys hated TLJ because of Rian Johnson and it wasn't reverential enough, why is Solo, a movie directed by someone uncontroversial and with no controversy about SJWs, not a roaring success?

    Fans who didn't like certain franchise film don't go to see next film of said franchise.
    RayCun wrote: »



    The argument is ridiculously weak.

    Again i'll ask, if Ep IX comes in under $1bn will you admit people's dislike of TLJ affected Solo & Ep IX numbers?

    I'm sure other excuses will be found.


  • Options
    #214
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,972 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Solo is losing hundreds of millions at the box office, claiming it's not means you don't know what you're talking about.

    TLJ's opening weekend had it on target for $1.7bn+ predictions(actually $1.9bn), but the film sucked so much balls that it had the biggest 2nd week falloff in the history of cinema as the usual repeat viewers didn't go back.

    You have to acutally see something before you can tell it's ****e, first Star Wars film to properly feature Hamill in 40 years predictably fell off after people saw it was so bad it made other films worse.

    Trying to pretend that a Star Wars film lost hundreds of millions & tanked across the world due to "Star Wars fatigue" or any other reason is what's laughable :D

    Why not? Your argument is predicated on the suggestion that Star Wars was an unassailable monolith without weakness, and that it has a ready-made, ravenous audience. In the cold light of day I'm coming around to the idea that the purchase of the Star Wars licence represents a huge overestimation as to the broad audiences' hunger for all things Skywalker. I genuinely believe the desire is lagging - or just non-existent. We all know how important China has become in the blockbuster market, yet Star Wars means nothing to folks over there. IIRC, the original trilogy never got released in China, so just for starters there isn't that groundswell of 25+ nerds to bolster the market. To me, the franchise is doomed to globally underperform by dint of the Chinese market shrugging its shoulders, while wondering when the next Fast & Furious film is out.

    As I said way back on the first page of this thread, when I grew up, Star Wars was the lesser spotted franchise, a self contained trilogy that built up a mystique, part of which probably came from the relative short span of films. Always leave the audience wanting more n' all that. Now, it's EVERYWHERE.

    Personally, my canary for the true value and interest in Star Wars is going to be that live-action TV series from Jon Favreau. That's where I think we'll see just how far, and how many, fans there truly are. If Star Wars can prosper on TV then it's clear there's a hunger to see other stories, told as long-form narratives; if it flops then it'll be equally evident to me that Star Wars is just a nostalgic curiousity and people don't actually care that much.
    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Taking the biggest IP in the history and running it into the ground in 3 years is not success, even if it is kinda impressive. :pac:

    The toys aren't selling they're rotting on shelves, sales & orders from manufacturers are down massively. The graphs for the saga & standalone films are also pointing sharply towards the floor.

    Hang on, you can't blame Kennedy for an over-saturation of tat within the market; she's a movie producer, not a marketing executive. In the last 5-10 years marketing companies and studios have realised that all those 1980s nerds now have deep pockets, willing to buy every piece of plastic garbage going (those f*cking Funko Pops are a pox and pure landfill fodder). Star Wars is just one more player in an overcrowded market, having to compete with Marvel, DC, Doctor Who, Star Trek, etc. etc. etc.


  • Options
    #215
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    RayCun wrote: »
    Oh great, another "this movie was unsuccessful because I didn't like a different movie that was extremely successful" argument.

    If everyone hated TLJ, how did it make so much money?

    If fanboys hated TLJ because of Rian Johnson and it wasn't reverential enough, why is Solo, a movie directed by someone uncontroversial and with no controversy about SJWs, not a roaring success?


    Well everybody that went to TFA was always going to go to TLJ regardless of rating, hence its "success" :rolleyes:

    The Star wars episodes will ALWAYS do amazing in the box office, constantly bringing up that argument is whats actually WEAK.

    Now what you should be thinking, is, should TLJ have done ALOT better? With Luke Skywalker, the last real Jedi playing a big part? Yes it should have done alot better.
    RayCun wrote: »

    The argument that people were turned away by the flaws of TLJ would only work if Solo was a similar film. But everything that people hated in TLJ (while flocking to see it) is absent from Solo.

    The argument is ridiculously weak.

    There are still many silly things in Solo that make it a meh movie, sure its entertaining for what it is, but at no point did i think this is a great "solo" movie. It was a predictable join the dots fan fare that i forgot about the next day and that i quite possibly will never see again..

    I blame the failing of it on the drama behind the scenes director juggling and the likes, poor timing for it to be released around all the other blockbusters (why didnt they just keep up the trend of a Christmas release?) they could have made that the Star wars time :rolleyes: And also the success of it fell massively on the shoulders of the old fans love for Solo going, who Disney fecked over massively in TLJ.. The new kids couldnt give two fecks about a Solo movie, he doesnt use a lazer sword :cool:

    Who was the shot caller in the majority of all the above? :pac:

    So no, its not a weak argument. ;)


  • Options
    #216
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Why not? Your argument is predicated on the suggestion that Star Wars was an unassailable monolith without weakness, and that it has a ready-made, ravenous audience. In the cold light of day I'm coming around to the idea that the purchase of the Star Wars licence represents a huge overestimation as to the broad audiences' hunger for all things Skywalker. I genuinely believe the desire is lagging - or just non-existent. We all know how important China has become in the blockbuster market, yet Star Wars means nothing to folks over there. IIRC, the original trilogy never got released in China, so just for starters there isn't that groundswell of 25+ nerds to bolster the market. To me, the franchise is doomed to globally underperform by dint of the Chinese market shrugging its shoulders, while wondering when the next Fast & Furious film is out.

    As I said way back on the first page of this thread, when I grew up, Star Wars was the lesser spotted franchise, a self contained trilogy that built up a mystique, part of which probably came from the relative short span of films. Always leave the audience wanting more n' all that. Now, it's EVERYWHERE.

    Personally, my canary for the true value and interest in Star Wars is going to be that live-action TV series from Jon Favreau. That's where I think we'll see just how far, and how many, fans there truly are. If Star Wars can prosper on TV then it's clear there's a hunger to see other stories, told as long-form narratives; if it flops then it'll be equally evident to me that Star Wars is just a nostalgic curiousity and people don't actually care that much.



    Hang on, you can't blame Kennedy for an over-saturation of tat within the market; she's a movie producer, not a marketing executive. In the last 5-10 years marketing companies and studios have realised that all those 1980s nerds now have deep pockets, willing to buy every piece of plastic garbage going (those f*cking Funko Pops are a pox and pure landfill fodder). Star Wars is just one more player in an overcrowded market, having to compete with Marvel, DC, Doctor Who, Star Trek, etc. etc. etc.


    TFA grossed over 2bn without doing well in China, so it's valid to compare the numbers of the newer films to TFA & Rogue One as China was not a big factor in either.

    And when i say the sales and orders for toys are down i'm comparing them to figures from around the release of TFA not the 80s, again it is valid to compare sales today to those 3 years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Biggest drop off in monetary terms. The film earned $220 million in its first weekend and dropped to $68 million in week two. That’s a $152 million drop, an all time record.

    OK but is it common to measure such things in monetary terms? When people say biggest second week drop they are usually talking percentage of opening weekend. TLJ had a drop of 67.5% but it still went on to make 1.3 billion. Rogue One had a drop off of 58% and Solo's drop off was 65% so it could be argued that SW fatigue has merely bottomed out (of course we won't know until Episode IX). BvS had a drop off of 69% and only went on to make 873million, Justice League had a smaller drop off of 56% but yet made less money with 658mill so I really don't see what relevance the monetary drop has when overall it was a success.

    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    It is fair to say that interest for a Solo film was a lot less than for a Kenobi film for example, but to say that TLJ had no influence on Solo's performance is to deny reality. IMO it was the main reason for it but sure we'll agree to differ.


    Fan scores for TLJ on Metacritic are 4.5/10, Rotten Tomatoes 47% & IMDB 7.3 which would put it below everything that came before it except PM & AOTC. And it was the fans who didn't show up for Solo, not the critics.

    What would it take for you to admit that a lot of fans were turned off by TLJ, when Ep IX comes in under a billion will that be enough?

    It really depends on what you mean by 'a lot'. I have no doubt that some fans were turned off by TLJ but I would think they were in the very small minority of SW fans based on how little actual outcry/pressure there is on KK to resign. Genuine question; how successful do you think Solo would have been had the fans who were turned off by TLJ had turned up for it? I cannot imagine that it would have been enough to push Solo's box office any much higher. As previously mentioned I firmly believe that Solo's performance is due to lack of interest amongst the general public bolstered by solid to mediocre reviews.


  • Options
    #218
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    TESB made a lot less money than SW. Does that mean fans didn't like it and that it's a worse movie? What's so hard to accept about the idea that TFA was a once-off event, the first SW movie in 10 years? So what if TLJ had Hamill in a major role. Hamill is not a major box office draw. If he was JJ wouldn't have gotten away with him giving him a cameo in TFA.


  • Options
    #219
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    OK but is it common to measure such things in monetary terms? When people say biggest second week drop they are usually talking percentage of opening weekend. TLJ had a drop of 67.5% but it still went on to make 1.3 billion. Rogue One had a drop off of 58% and Solo's drop off was 65% so it could be argued that SW fatigue has merely bottomed out (of course we won't know until Episode IX). BvS had a drop off of 69% and only went on to make 873million, Justice League had a smaller drop off of 56% but yet made less money with 658mill so I really don't see what relevance the monetary drop has when overall it was a success.




    It really depends on what you mean by 'a lot'. I have no doubt that some fans were turned off by TLJ but I would think they were in the very small minority of SW fans based on how little actual outcry/pressure there is on KK to resign. Genuine question; how successful do you think Solo would have been had the fans who were turned off by TLJ had turned up for it? I cannot imagine that it would have been enough to push Solo's box office any much higher. As previously mentioned I firmly believe that Solo's performance is due to lack of interest amongst the general public bolstered by solid to mediocre reviews.


    Not all the people who didn't like TLJ are doing the outcrying, most aren't but Solo suffered due to their loss of interest in the franchise.

    If TLJ was univerally loved Solo would not be looking at a box office loss imo.


  • Options
    #220
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,220 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I’d actually like to be able to see The Last Jedi through the eyes of those who hate it so much, just out of pure curiosity. I’ve heard all the criticisms ad nauseum (from the wholly reasonable to the utterly hysterical) and I just can’t marry the smart, artful film I’ve seen to the one that conjures up so much unconstrained vitriol. Even allowing for the usual, natural divergence of opinion and views, this one is extraordinary.


  • Options
    #221
    HandsomeBob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,977 ✭✭✭HandsomeBob


    Curious also any handy links with a summation of the criticisms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    TESB made a lot less money than SW. Does that mean fans didn't like it and that it's a worse movie?

    Nope, first film in the trilogy always does best. It's the size of the difference & the lack of legs for TLJ after a very strong opening that people are referencing.
    Sad Professor wrote: »
    What's so hard to accept about the idea that TFA was a once-off event, the first SW movie in 10 years?

    Nobodies not accepting that.
    Sad Professor wrote: »
    Hamill is not a major box office draw. If he was JJ wouldn't have gotten away with him giving him a cameo in TFA.

    Hamill is a huge draw for Star Wars fans, to claim otherwise is ignorance at best or excuse making at worst.

    JJ has said he couldn't find a way to bring Luke into the film without it becoming a story all about Luke. That's why he restricted him to a cameo, he passed the buck basically.


  • Options
    #223
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    I’d actually like to be able to see The Last Jedi through the eyes of those who hate it so much, just out of pure curiosity. I’ve heard all the criticisms ad nauseum (from the wholly reasonable to the utterly hysterical) and I just can’t marry the smart, artful film I’ve seen to the one that conjures up so much unconstrained vitriol. Even allowing for the usual divergence of opinion and views, this one is extraordinary.

    Yah but your on a different part of the political spectrum so, saying there are no problems fits with that MO.

    There are sure problems with these films but not enough to be super hateful.


  • Options
    #224
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    TESB made a lot less money than SW. Does that mean fans didn't like it and that it's a worse movie? What's so hard to accept about the idea that TFA was a once-off event, the first SW movie in 10 years? So what if TLJ had Hamill in a major role. Hamill is not a major box office draw. If he was JJ wouldn't have gotten away with him giving him a cameo in TFA.

    I for one don't think box office should be included at all when discussing movies, but usually when i find myself rambling on about it, take these Star wars discussions for example, its because someone on the other side of the fence brought it up first as a way to support their point, and then i ramble on about how it shows the opposite.

    But also, when discussing Kathleen Kennedy's Star wars future, it will always come into discussion i guess no matter what, as her job will be to maximise profit. So in that light, she is failing, short term and now with the "failing" of solo and halt of all future projects, its looking like long term also..


    And i disagree with Mark Hamill, sure he aint much outside Star wars box office draw wise, but within Star wars? Mucho draw! He's the hero of the originals. Everybody who has watched Star wars wanted to see where his character went :o


  • Options
    #225
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Yah but your on a different part of the political spectrum so, saying there are no problems fits with that MO.

    There are sure problems with these films but not enough to be super hateful.

    Are you suggesting that everyone who doesn't like a certain film are as a block of the same political persuasion?


  • Options
    #226
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that everyone who doesn't like a certain film are as a block of the same political persuasion?

    No I am saying that if you can only see one side of it and can't for a second understand the flaws others see then you are equally as bad as the people who hate the film.

    People from both sides of the spectrum hate it and love it because of where they sit themselves.


  • Options
    #227
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    I’d actually like to be able to see The Last Jedi through the eyes of those who hate it so much, just out of pure curiosity. I’ve heard all the criticisms ad nauseum (from the wholly reasonable to the utterly hysterical) and I just can’t marry the smart, artful film I’ve seen to the one that conjures up so much unconstrained vitriol. Even allowing for the usual, natural divergence of opinion and views, this one is extraordinary.

    Because the actual vitriol that hinges on the 'it ruined Star Wars' argument is the minuscule minority.

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

    It remains entirely entertaining throughout but has as many sour points as it does heights and I'm not convinced that JJ can bring the ship back on course.

    However, cinema audiences loved the movie, as did critics. Fans were a little more divided - but not necessarily along the good/bad divide, more on some radical mis-steps that hawked back to the wayward efforts of the prequels and the varying levels to which they hurt the film/franchise.

    You don't have to ignore the flaws in a movie to love it, just as you don't have to feel a movie is bad because it's riddled with flaws.

    But all this hysterical talk about the Last Jedi being the franchise's equivalent to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' - or that anything other than a small minority actually hated the movie - is just ridiculous.

    I've met people with 101 varying opinions on TLJ and what it did best, worst, and everything in between, as well as how they'd rate the movie on the whole....but I've yet to meet someone in real life that genuinely hated it.

    Trying to twist and manipulate what are hugely successful figures that most studios could only dream of, into a tale of woe that supports a minority argument is just absurd.


  • Options
    #228
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Nope, first film in the trilogy always does best. It's the size of the difference & the lack of legs for TLJ after a very strong opening that people are referencing.



    Nobodies not accepting that.



    Hamill is a huge draw for Star Wars fans, to claim otherwise is ignorance at best or excuse making at worst.

    JJ has said he couldn't find a way to bring Luke into the film without it becoming a story all about Luke. That's why he restricted him to a cameo, he passed the buck basically.

    Hamill is a huge draw for SW fans, not mainstream audiences.

    The fans all went to see TLJ in the first week because that's what fans do. If this forum and others are anything to go by, they then went back to see it again, even the ones who hated it. The subsequent drop off was because mainstream viewers, who can barely distinguish between saga films and non-saga films, decided it was just another SW movie, the third in the space of two years. Did a minority of devastated fans only going to see the film 3 times instead of 6 times play a role? Undoubtedly, but I think that role is being massively exaggerated.

    I agree with pixelburp that the franchise doesn't have the mainstream appeal some people (many of them at Disney) think it has. It's mainstream viewers, most of whom don't spend their nights thinking about Luke would have done, that decide the box office of these films.


  • Options
    #229
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    Calhoun wrote: »
    No I am saying that if you can only see one side of it and can't for a second understand the flaws others see then you are equally as bad as the people who hate the film.

    Ah, ok.

    I'd imagine for most who love/hate it, it's mainly to do with the Star Wars rather than the politics. Maybe i'm underestimating it.


  • Options
    #230
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    Hamill is a huge draw for SW fans, not mainstream audiences.

    The fans all went to see TLJ in the first week because that's what fans do. If this forum and others are anything to go by, they then went back to see it again, even the ones who hated it. The subsequent drop off was because mainstream viewers, who can barely distinguish between saga films and non-saga films, decided it was just another SW movie, the third in the space of two years. Did a minority of devastated fans only going to see the film 3 times instead of 6 times play a role? Undoubtedly, but I think that role is being massively exaggerated.

    I agree with pixelburp that the franchise doesn't have the mainstream appeal some people (many of them at Disney) think it has. It's mainstream viewers, most of whom don't spend their nights thinking about Luke would have done, that decide the box office of these films.


    I'd disagree with that but fair enough, i guess we'll get our answer with Ep IX.


  • Options
    #231
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    nix wrote: »
    Well everybody that went to TFA was always going to go to TLJ regardless of rating, hence its "success" :rolleyes:

    Really.
    Nobody reads reviews, or looks at trailers, or listens to buzz. If you like one movie then you are compelled to go to the next one.
    Just like the way I lined up to see Solo on the first day because I enjoyed TLJ and Rogue One.
    nix wrote: »
    The Star wars episodes will ALWAYS do amazing in the box office, constantly bringing up that argument is whats actually WEAK.

    But Solo didn't.
    So not every Star Wars movie will do AMAZING in the box office.
    And which movie will not do amazing? The one ruined by SJWs? Er no, the other one.
    nix wrote: »
    Now what you should be thinking, is, should TLJ have done ALOT better? With Luke Skywalker, the last real Jedi playing a big part? Yes it should have done alot better.

    What are you, 12? The last real Jedi? :rolleyes:

    No, I take that back, because 12 year olds don't really give a **** about Luke Skywalker, a guy from a 30 year old movie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    Not all the people who didn't like TLJ are doing the outcrying, most aren't but Solo suffered due to their loss of interest in the franchise.

    If TLJ was univerally loved Solo would not be looking at a box office loss imo.

    But again you seem to be implying that fans dislike of TLJ was the contributing factor to Solo's loss and I just don't see the evidence for a) such a large backlash b) the existence of such of large extent of unsatisfied fans who disliked it to exhort that amount of influence over box office. As I, and others, have mentioned the people who disliked TLJ to the extent that they lost interest in the franchise would seem to be in the vast minority. To be me it's far more likely that the people who didn't see Solo are people who went to see TLJ because it was part of the saga and was obviously going to be one of the biggest films of the year. Solo meanwhile was not a saga story and unlike Rogue One which told a new story with new characters, was a prequel to an existing character played by a different actor and not the one who made that character likeable in the first place.


  • Options
    #233
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    RayCun wrote: »
    Really.
    Nobody reads reviews, or looks at trailers, or listens to buzz. If you like one movie then you are compelled to go to the next one.
    Just like the way I lined up to see Solo on the first day because I enjoyed TLJ and Rogue One.

    But Solo didn't.
    So not every Star Wars movie will do AMAZING in the box office.
    And which movie will not do amazing? The one ruined by SJWs? Er no, the other one.

    I'm referring to the episodic Star wars movies, and yes most people will go to see them regardless of rating, they want to see where the journey they started ends. Not referring to the stand alones.

    RayCun wrote: »
    What are you, 12? The last real Jedi? :rolleyes:

    No, I take that back, because 12 year olds don't really give a **** about Luke Skywalker, a guy from a 30 year old movie.

    Yeah Luke, the last jedi, he was trained by two master jedi over a period of time. Rey spends a weekend trying to get Luke to train her, he gives her two lessons and shes a Jedi? lol

    And eh, yeah alot of kids would have watched the original Star wars movies, kids have these things called parents who take them to the movies and eh, most of them would have shown them the movies :rolleyes:

    My brother showed his kids, they were pumped when they saw Luke in the new movies. LOL the entire Saga before was based around the skywalkers, pay attention :P

    Also, Resorting to petty insults? what are you? 11? :pac:


  • Options
    #234
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    nix wrote: »
    I'm referring to the episodic Star wars movies, and yes most people will go to see them regardless of rating, they want to see where they journey the started ends. Not referring to the stand alones.
    ...

    Also, Resorting to petty insults? what are you? 11? :pac:

    petty insults?

    You appear to think most people are morons who will go see any old **** with the Star Wars name on it.


  • Options
    #235
    nix
    Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭nix


    RayCun wrote: »
    petty insults?

    You appear to think most people are morons who will go see any old **** with the Star Wars name on it.

    I never said people are morons, i said "everybody that went to TFA was always going to go to TLJ regardless of rating, hence its "success""

    Now, tell me where i called people morons? :rolleyes:

    And yes to add again, people who have watched episodes 1-6 will defo go to see 7-9. (Spoiler: ITS WHY DISNEY BOUGHT STAR WARS)

    :rolleyes::confused::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #236
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,516 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    nix wrote: »
    I never said people are morons, i said "everybody that went to TFA was always going to go to TLJ regardless of rating, hence its "success""

    Not sure about the everyone

    TFA hit 2+ and TLJ 1.3+, that's a big fall off. Could be less subsequent viewing, and poor word of mouth. Pretty sure they would have been countless meetings at Disney on why they didn't hit TFA numbers.


  • Options
    #237
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,972 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
    TFA grossed over 2bn without doing well in China, so it's valid to compare the numbers of the newer films to TFA & Rogue One as China was not a big factor in either.

    And when i say the sales and orders for toys are down i'm comparing them to figures from around the release of TFA not the 80s, again it is valid to compare sales today to those 3 years ago.

    I think TFA can't be fairly considered the benchmark, considering the large novelty factor it possessed, being the first of a new trilogy, a JJ Abrams film, first Disney Star Wars etc. It was always going to pull in the rubber neckers and do gangbusters. The real judgement on the staying power was going to be the later films, the spin offs - and for me, the TV series. So when that dust settled, China came into play because whether you like it or not that's the territory that's propping up a LOT of blockbusters (step forward Terminator Genisys).


  • Options
    #238
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    But again you seem to be implying that fans dislike of TLJ was the contributing factor to Solo's loss and I just don't see the evidence for a) such a large backlash b) the existence of such of large extent of unsatisfied fans who disliked it to exhort that amount of influence over box office. As I, and others, have mentioned the people who disliked TLJ to the extent that they lost interest in the franchise would seem to be in the vast minority. To be me it's far more likely that the people who didn't see Solo are people who went to see TLJ because it was part of the saga and was obviously going to be one of the biggest films of the year. Solo meanwhile was not a saga story and unlike Rogue One which told a new story with new characters, was a prequel to an existing character played by a different actor and not the one who made that character likeable in the first place.

    I know you've mentioned it but i disagree & you've not provided evidence for your claim either. The 44% drop in Bluray sales would suggest a sizeable amount, which can't be put down to casual cinema goers.


  • Options
    #239
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    If people are going to go see movies because they liked movies made 30 years earlier and 10 years earlier by a completely different set of people, the word to describe them is not "geniuses".


  • Options
    #240
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Come to think of it, if people are going to see the latest trilogy because they liked the prequel trilogy, we probably need a whole new vocabulary to describe them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I think TFA can't be fairly considered the benchmark, considering the large novelty factor it possessed, being the first of a new trilogy, a JJ Abrams film, first Disney Star Wars etc. It was always going to pull in the rubber neckers and do gangbusters. The real judgement on the staying power was going to be the later films, the spin offs - and for me, the TV series. So when that dust settled, China came into play because whether you like it or not that's the territory that's propping up a LOT of blockbusters (step forward Terminator Genisys).

    I've said already that TFA wasn't the target, above 1.7bn was the forecast & it opened on target but dropped off badly. China always was & remains irrelevant when it comes to Star Wars


Advertisement