Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Dades · 11-06-2021 10:50am

pixelburp wrote: »

Your first mistake is reading Medium I've only ever stuck to technical, programming articles and even then half are so dogmatic and opinionated they're often unreadble. It's long-form Twitter at this stage.

I think you're right. Some of the film stuff is worth reading. But even at this stage the design stuff I signed up for in the first place annoys me.

So much clickbait, badly researched writing and outrage over everything that doesn't conform to this morning's sensibilities.

JP Liz V1 · 12-06-2021 2:31am

Toby Jones has joined

artvanderlay · 13-06-2021 9:49pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Toby Jones has joined

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/harrison-ford-seen-scottish-beauty-20803559

14-06-2021 7:47am

Whatever about if this turns out okay or not, one of the complaints is about how Kathleen Kennedy is involved, granted mainly because of a certain crowd. Think this tweet is pretty relevant.

https://twitter.com/DonaldClarke63/status/1404210895241220097?s=19

pixelburp · 14-06-2021 11:21am

I do wonder if those who are obsessed with Kathleen Kennedy could even name 5 other Hollywood producers (who haven't been in the news for the wrong reasons ala Weinstein); that sure is a helluva a CV but then I also wonder how many of the movies those Always Outraged have even seen. She's probably twice the SJW considering she produced The Colour Purple and Lincoln :pac:

speedboatchase · 14-06-2021 12:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about if this turns out okay or not, one of the complaints is about how Kathleen Kennedy is involved, granted mainly because of a certain crowd. Think this tweet is pretty relevant.

https://twitter.com/DonaldClarke63/status/1404210895241220097?s=19

Is it not moreso about the fact that she was the Star Wars equivalent of Kevin Feige but dropped the ball immediately?

py2006 · 14-06-2021 4:00pm

Not really keen on the Scottish setting, hopefully its just a couple scenes.

He has to be in a jungle setting, encountering a lost tribe or something with lots of ACTUAL bugs, snakes and spider webs etc.

Theboinkmaster · 14-06-2021 4:29pm

Anyone see the tweets from Mangold to Kadish over his comments?

I assume Disney are tearing their hair out at Mangold, getting into a twitter feud with some small podcast owner.

Insane stuff and not a good sign of where Mangold's head is out

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 5:00pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Anyone see the tweets from Mangold to Kadish over his comments?

I assume Disney are tearing their hair out at Mangold, getting into a twitter feud with some small podcast owner.

Insane stuff and not a good sign of where Mangold's head is out

Care to elaborate?

pixelburp · 14-06-2021 5:08pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Googled and seems like Mangold got catty at the above tweet protonmike shared; TBH if I had only just started working on something and had the Great Unwashed of Twitter sledgingit left, right and centre, I'd be feeling miffed too. Mind you, Mangold should know you don't feed the trolls on the internet and only end up looking the worse for it. Especially when the knives are already out for Indy 5 before a single piece of footage is seen.

This random site I found seems to have collated the responses:

https://cosmicbook.news/indiana-jones-5-director-james-mangold-responds-backlash

MisterAnarchy · 14-06-2021 5:28pm

Well James Mangold has confirmed that he and the Butterworth brothers wrote an entirely new script for Indy 5 which is good to hear.

Tony EH · 14-06-2021 5:33pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Googled and seems like Mangold got catty at the above tweet protonmike shared; TBH if I had only just started working on something and had the Great Unwashed of Twitter sledgingit left, right and centre, I'd be feeling miffed too. Mind you, Mangold should know you don't feed the trolls on the internet and only end up looking the worse for it. Especially when the knives are already out for Indy 5 before a single piece of footage is seen.

This random site I found seems to have collated the responses:

https://cosmicbook.news/indiana-jones-5-director-james-mangold-responds-backlash

Hmmm...while I have no enthusiasm for Indy 5, whatsoever, Mangold should really have more cop on than to get into 180 character spats with gobshites on Twitter. Absolutely nothing good comes of that.

FunLover18 · 14-06-2021 5:42pm

I think Mangold handled it pretty well. There was no need for him to engage at all but I don't think he completely embarrassed himself.

Theboinkmaster · 14-06-2021 9:42pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think Mangold handled it pretty well. There was no need for him to engage at all but I don't think he completely embarrassed himself.

I disagree I think he’s an embarrassment lowering himself to respond to trolls on Twitter and gets nasty.

Very poor judgement and I’d say Disney are fvcking fuming with him.

Doesn’t say much for his state of mind.

15-06-2021 9:19am

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I disagree I think he’s an embarrassment lowering himself to respond to trolls on Twitter and gets nasty.

Very poor judgement and I’d say Disney are fvcking fuming with him.

Doesn’t say much for his state of mind.

I'm sorry but that entire comment is hyperbolic nonsense and as for state of mind? Cop on with the bar stool psychoanalysis

silverharp · 15-06-2021 9:38am

he messed up, the original tweets didnt tag him, he decided to inject himself into random Twitter, and there was nothing gracious about what he said, totally petulant

pixelburp · 15-06-2021 9:48am

The only winner here will be that rando's podcast really; I'm sure they've seen a subscriber bump. But I sympathise with Mangold; directing a film production during CoVid isn't an easy or stress-free task ATM (see Tom Cruise going apeshít over some of his crew's mistakes). And even if nobody really wants an Indy 5, Mangold isn't out to make a Bad Movie; yet the factionalisation of the internet is such a cottage industry now, the knives were out the moment this started shooting. Talking Heads manufacturing outrage 'cos successful Hollywood producer Kathleen Kennedy is producing, or Waller-Bridge is starring. It's sad, and will only go away with people with more exposure ignore it en masse. So Mangold should have taken a breath, never responded in the first place - but I still get it.

silverharp · 15-06-2021 10:07am

the best retort is a good film, and they dont mess up the way one expects Disney to do

pixelburp · 15-06-2021 10:16am

silverharp wrote: »

the best retort is a good film, and they dont mess up the way one expects Disney to do

I genuinely don't think that'll be enough for these types. Indy 5 would have to be a flawless piece of cinema to get a thumbs-up ... and even then! The nature of YouTube/podcast sledging is that a single mistimed joke, or perceived slight (we both know every single line & action of Waller-Bridge will be parsed) will be dumped on. It doesn't even have to be "political" either: the "Everything Wrong With..." style is easier content than actual analysis. Suspension of Disbelief is a switch now.

Heck, going by this thread if Last Crusade was replicated in style and tone exactly in 2020+, there'll be plenty of Think Pieces attacking #5 for being too jokey, too silly. Typical Disney, using the Marvel formula! Ya know that's how the thinking would steer; anything with jokes now is "the Marvel formula". Critically, this film can't win; financially we'll see. I've said it enough that I don't want an indy 5 but I'm absolutely keeping an open, hopeful mind.

silverharp · 15-06-2021 10:45am

pixelburp wrote: »

I genuinely don't think that'll be enough for these types. Indy 5 would have to be a flawless piece of cinema to get a thumbs-up ... and even then! The nature of YouTube/podcast sledging is that a single mistimed joke, or perceived slight (we both know every single line & action of Waller-Bridge will be parsed) will be dumped on. It doesn't even have to be "political" either: the "Everything Wrong With..." style is easier content than actual analysis. Suspension of Disbelief is a switch now.

Heck, going by this thread if Last Crusade was replicated in style and tone exactly in 2020+, there'll be plenty of Think Pieces attacking #5 for being too jokey, too silly. Typical Disney, using the Marvel formula! Ya know that's how the thinking would steer; anything with jokes now is "the Marvel formula". Critically, this film can't win; financially we'll see. I've said it enough that I don't want an indy 5 but I'm absolutely keeping an open, hopeful mind.

they are professional film makers, every line, nod and wink is carefully scripted so really its on them. Otherwise there will be subjective stuff down to the tone of the humor etc. or relatively objective stuff like telling a good story , good villain and one or 2 interesting side characters.
Honestly if its a decent paced mcguffin hunt with shady nazis, and great production values, im looking forward to it

py2006 · 15-06-2021 10:53am

I just really hope they listened to the criticisms of the last outing and avoid some of those pitfalls.

pixelburp · 15-06-2021 11:16am

silverharp wrote: »

they are professional film makers, every line, nod and wink is carefully scripted so really its on them. Otherwise there will be subjective stuff down to the tone of the humor etc. or relatively objective stuff like telling a good story , good villain and one or 2 interesting side characters.
Honestly if its a decent paced mcguffin hunt with shady nazis, and great production values, im looking forward to it

"Carefully" scripted? Your presumption here about Hollywood writing is charming

:pac:

Heck it's not uncommon for films to start shooting without a script - IIRC the Mission Impossible movies start with storyboards, not a finished script.

Theboinkmaster · 15-06-2021 11:46am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm sorry but that entire comment is hyperbolic nonsense and as for state of mind? Cop on with the bar stool psychoanalysis

I stand by what I said - what he did doesn’t exactly scream confidence in his work and faith in this project.

silverharp · 15-06-2021 11:48am

pixelburp wrote: »

"Carefully" scripted? Your presumption here about Hollywood writing is charming :pac:

Heck it's not uncommon for films to start shooting without a script - IIRC the Mission Impossible movies start with storyboards, not a finished script.

now now, are you saying everyone that likes to analyse films like 2001 are just seeing random sht that isnt there? it wasnt a comment on the quality as such but I'd at least grant them that someone at some stage made conscious choices and were doing their best, whether they are right people is a different discussion.
Basically it will come down to how they treat the Indy character.

johnny_ultimate · 15-06-2021 11:59am

As foolish as it is to get involved in Twitter spats in general (no matter who you are) to me Mangold's defensiveness likely comes from pride in the project and respect for his collaborators. I can only imagine how ****ty it would be if you were literally just starting production on a film you were putting everything into and you had to listen to naysaying dweebs ****ting on it all the time. Better for one’s mental health to try to filter it out granted, but being proud of one’s work is a very human response.

Healthy, reasonable scepticism about the project is natural given the track record of bleated 'franchise' sequels. But self-entitled nerd rage is not healthy and reasonable.

Two things can be through simultaneously: don't get involved in petty twitter spats; and don't go on the internet having a hissy fit about a film you know nothing about that's a week into production. Although frankly don't have hissy fits in general - life's too short and film as a medium is too rich to spend years obsessing over franchise films, like many of these internet angry men are.

Tony EH · 15-06-2021 1:31pm

silverharp wrote: »

they are professional film makers, every line, nod and wink is carefully scripted so really its on them.

That's absolutely not how movies are made these days.

Studios have a much bigger influence on the film makers than people think and they demand their quotas of certain things to be put into "their" movie. That's partly why there's an inordinate amount of inept, unfunny, "comedy" in practically everything made now. Studio mandated laughs that wreck a movie's tone. Ridiculous action scenes where characters don't give a shit about their own existence.

There are other studio mandated changes that are thrust upon film makers too, in respect to character, narrative and pacing that can often reduce the original script(s) to ashes.

And because they hold the purse strings, they will get their way too. On these big tent pole movies it's even worse. Producers are king. The director is just there to film the thing.

15-06-2021 1:39pm

If I'm honest, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the project because Mangold has actually dealt with aging heroes pretty amazingly in the past. I'd love if he could inject that sort of brilliance into this. My concern on the other hand is he might be given limited creative freedom.

silverharp · 15-06-2021 2:22pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's absolutely not how movies are made these days.

Studios have a much bigger influence on the film makers than people think and they demand their quotas of certain things to be put into "their" movie. That's partly why there's an inordinate amount of inept, unfunny, "comedy" in practically everything made now. Studio mandated laughs that wreck a movie's tone. Ridiculous action scenes where characters don't give a shit about their own existence.

There are other studio mandated changes that are thrust upon film makers too, in respect to character, narrative and pacing that can often reduce the original script(s) to ashes.

And because they hold the purse strings, they will get their way too. On these big tent pole movies it's even worse. Producers are king. The director is just there to film the thing.

then you can push the criticism up the chain to the likes of KK , I dont mind so much if a film is just not good because it looks like the product of a committee, Army of the Dead for example, which had the feel of throwing a bunch of cliche elements into a blender to see what comes out.

pixelburp · 15-06-2021 2:28pm

Hollywood cinema was never, ever NOT driven by the executive level; ultimately these things are made for making money after all. But equally you can't say with certainty how each and every production was treated by its producer tier either. Some are hands on, some are hands off; there's definitely interjections now when it comes to global markets for instance; while some were famously well known such as Weinstein who thought nothing of editing films behind directors' backs (famously coming to blows with Parasite director, Bong Joon-ho. Others might want X, Y and Z, and don't care how the production gets there. It depends.

But the only reason you'd peg blame on a producer like Kathleen Kennedy is purely because of a personal axe to grind 'cos she diddled with the toys of Star Wars. If there's any history with her tinkering on (say) the Spielberg films she oversaw, I'm not aware of it - and I find it hard to believe Spielberg would put up with it either. But then Kennedy is now the big bogeywoman, an otherwise stellar career upended for having the gal to mess with the Sacred Text of Star Wars.

BorneTobyWilde · 15-06-2021 2:34pm

Indiana Jones needed the darker type version of the series, the same they done with films like Superman, or Batman, or Rocky, Joker .
Trying to copy the Jones movies of the 80's won't work

Tony EH · 15-06-2021 2:52pm

Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.

Tony EH · 15-06-2021 2:54pm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Indiana Jones needed the darker type version of the series, the same they done with films like Superman, or Batman, or Rocky, Joker .
Trying to copy the Jones movies of the 80's won't work

The first two movies are pretty dark. It's the third one that turned it into Monty Python.

pixelburp · 15-06-2021 3:34pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

A good producer can be more than a "bean counter" though, often as much a people manager as the director - especially with the more mercurial of either - and both usually have a close working relationship in terms of the day-to-days (especially if the producer is also the star, ala Tom Cruise and the MI films). Plus, I daresay before Episode VII the vast majority of Star Wars fans had never even heard of Kennedy. I'm not going to pretend I did, or that I know her particular methods across the decades she has work - but equally I'm not going to single her out either for an apparent choice to extend "space wizard magic" to include Mary Poppins powers. It was a bit hokey but ... yeah. Star Wars.

And in any case, the fact we're even (still) talking about her is because of this continued demented obsession as Kennedy being some kind of creative millstone - or mark of death on a production. When the reality is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Especially given Star Wars was sullied enough by its own Father, one Mr. George Midichlorian Lucas, and yet Kennedy's the pariah? Id' certainly trust her to know more about what works than the average podcaster. Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.

15-06-2021 3:35pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.

She gets a truck full of good grace for this alone

Tony EH · 15-06-2021 4:15pm

pixelburp wrote: »

A good producer can be more than a "bean counter" though, often as much a people manager as the director - especially with the more mercurial of either - and both usually have a close working relationship in terms of the day-to-days (especially if the producer is also the star, ala Tom Cruise and the MI films). Plus, I daresay before Episode VII the vast majority of Star Wars fans had never even heard of Kennedy. I'm not going to pretend I did, or that I know her particular methods across the decades she has work - but equally I'm not going to single her out either for an apparent choice to extend "space wizard magic" to include Mary Poppins powers. It was a bit hokey but ... yeah. Star Wars.

And in any case, the fact we're even (still) talking about her is because of this continued demented obsession as Kennedy being some kind of creative millstone - or mark of death on a production. When the reality is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Especially given Star Wars was sullied enough by its own Father, one Mr. George Midichlorian Lucas, and yet Kennedy's the pariah? Id' certainly trust her to know more about what works than the average podcaster. Anyone who brought Who Framed Roger Rabbit into this world gets a lifetime pass IMO.

For sure, a good or bad producer can make or break a film. I get the impression, though, that these days there's more "producers" than are needed and, more often than not, interfere in a film project in a bad way rather than a good way. Careerist types looking to move up a ladder of some sort.

"Producer" is a much varied term though as you know. It can mean anything from Howard Hawks or Roger Corman to some faceless exec who's been given more power than they deserve.

Not to labour on Kathleen Kennedy, but I think her problem was that she became so front an centre that she was the obvious aiming point for a lot of the criticism (just and unjust) fired at the Star Wars sequels, while the likes of Abrams ducked for cover and let her take the shots. In my mind she certainly has her part to play, but as said earlier there's loads more people involved.

As for "still talking about her", she's still the head of Lucasfilm. So she'll still be a topic of conversation, even if that conversation includes unreasonable hair pullers using her as a reason to issue a click bait rant on YouTube.

py2006 · 15-06-2021 4:49pm

Kathleen deserves a lot of credit for her involvement in those classics mentioned from 20-30 years ago. However, she does seem to have pandered to recent trends in relation to feminism and wokeism etc, if some of the commentators are correct.

conorhal · 16-06-2021 11:01am

Tony EH wrote: »

Placing the blame upon the shoulders of Kennedy for how the Star Wars sequels turned out is indeed a bit silly. There's plenty of people involved to share the blame for the mess those rubbish movies became.

But I'd still maintain that while she is, probably, a good bean counter, a creative she is not and the further in the background she remains the better. If what I heard about her insistence on that stupid flying Leia scene from 'The Last Jedi' is correct, then the less she has to say about the creative side of a project is more than likely a good thing.

But you're right, the "suits" have always been largely a scourge on film makers at some level. But these days it appears, with all the umph given to focus groups and data driven "analysis", they are even more likely to become involved to the detriment of the movie. It's different to yesteryear, where you have a single mogul interfering with a director's vision. Nowadays, there's armies of "producers" all vying to have their input, mostly in an effort to keep their jobs.

I can't recall who said it, but some director once remarked that you could eliminate half the names on the credits of most movies and still get them made.

She may be a fine producer, but she's a dreadful head of Lucasfilm, objectively.
Any studio boss that hires and fires directors from projects in production, reshoots entire films, thus making one film for the price of two and divides the audience with creative decisions because they don't understand the IP is the wrong person to be in charge.

I've seen some insiders refer to Kennedy as 'Spielberg's set wife', and no, that does not imply she is where she is because 'you know', it's a reference to the fact that her role on his productions was largely limited making sure the meals were on the table, the ironing done and the kids got off to school. In other words, she looked after the nuts and bolts of production so that the creative side of the production could operate without concerning themselves with them.
She was never a 'creatively involved producer' like say, Saul Zaentz for example, those kind of old school producers have gone the way of the Dodo. As head of Lucasfilm she has however inserted herself into the creative process and that's an area of expertise that she's clearly not suited to.

Disney hasn't been run by creative producers in a very long time now, it's run by corporate suits with marketing degrees and Kennedy still has her job because she aligns with that current Disney ethos.

As for Indy 5. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my all-time favourite movies but I have no interest in seeing this latest outing, the last one was bad enough and I've never cared for Mangold's movies.
Indy, like Bond or McClain are action architypes brought to life by the actors. I don't think anybody is interested in watching a near 80yr old Harrison Ford doff the fedora again.
I suspect aged Indy is going to be little more than a framing device (like in The Young Indiana Jones Cornicles) for a soft reboot introducing the *shudder* 'new generation', something I'm also utterly disinterested in.

This is just another member-berry cash grab and that's a trend that can't die soon enough.

conorhal · 16-06-2021 11:48am

pixelburp wrote: »

How do we know there's a de-aged Indy? Was there an actor walking around with some mo-cap dots on his face? Just curious as that seems like a big enough swing.

Title leak: Indiana Jones and the Uncanny Valley of Doom!

It's hard to say, it could just be a picture of a young stunt double, but surely he would have grey hair if that was the case, not brown.
None of this is helped by the fact that Indy apparently hasn't changed his clothes in 40yrs.....

pixelburp · 16-06-2021 11:56am

Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.

silverharp · 16-06-2021 12:23pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.

You have to remember Disney ponied up the price of a couple of aircraft carriers to acquire this. The film side of Disney seems relatively dead going forward so any films they do make will be pricey but not likely to be billion dollar films.
Their theme parks didn't capture the imagination as Disney I believe moved away from the old characters, and outside of some adult children that will pay 200$ for a lightsaber , their toys Im guessing didnt do great either.

pixelburp · 16-06-2021 12:41pm

silverharp wrote: »

You have to remember Disney ponied up the price of a couple of aircraft carriers to acquire this. The film side of Disney seems relatively dead going forward so any films they do make will be pricey but not likely to be billion dollar films.
Their theme parks didn't capture the imagination as Disney I believe moved away from the old characters, and outside of some adult children that will pay 200$ for a lightsaber , their toys Im guessing didnt do great either.

They paid a sheer fortune, but like I said the films did well financially, despite the lack of Chinese money, while TV coupled with Disney+ could be where the IP does the best work. At which point "success" is rolled into the overall goals of Disney+ (presumably driven by subscribers than eyeballs watching). I'd be inclined to think so too 'cos the goodwill towards and success of The Mandalorian must surely turn heads that audiences mightn't necessarily want brainless cinematic blockbusters anymore. Smaller overheads, with less on the line too.

Can't speak to their parks' success, especially the Star Wars one wasn't open that long 'til they all shut down due to CoVid. And given Avatar is apparently getting its own section, I'd question just how critical to the profit margin the theme parks are these days.

Tony EH · 16-06-2021 3:30pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Without checking the stats, the only Star Wars release we can say was a definite flop was Solo, and even then it's unclear just how much, given the final budget remains a rumour (though tattle says it was upwards of $350 million[!!]).

The circular blather industry of YouTube might have ripped the new films to shreds, but that wasn't manifest in the box office IMO - where success was quite admirable really, given China has consistently given all things Star Wars a big 'aul shrug of indifference. Financial success without that bulwark reads all the more impressive.

Ah come on Pix. BO has nothing to do with quality and that's what the films will be ultimately remembered for. Into the bargain, there's very much a downward trend, moneywise, for the new Star Wars movies from 'The Force Awakens' onwards and the qualitative agreement is only apparent with 'Rogue One', which has been the single Disney Star Wars movie to have achieved any kind of positive consensus among fans and non-fans alike.

Plus 'Solo' flopped and flopped hard. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Disney certainly aren't trying to make it out that it did even ok money.

Sure, the silly YouTube stuff that only offer clickbait dancing in the graves of certain movies becomes tiresome after a very short while. But Disney Star Wars movies aren't in a good place either, irrespective of the YouTube blather.

silverharp · 16-06-2021 3:45pm

the third Star Wars film had half the box office of the first of the 3, contrast with MCU that batted it out of the park on their finale. Or Hunger Games where the third film was in the ball park of the first film. They cant have been happy

johnny_ultimate · 16-06-2021 3:48pm

If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

Tony EH · 16-06-2021 3:55pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

The fact that 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' made less money than 'Star Wars' doesn't really mean that it's ordained that the Disney Star Wars movies would do the same.

pixelburp · 16-06-2021 3:58pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah come on Pix. BO has nothing to do with quality and that's what the films will be ultimately remembered for. Into the bargain, there's very much a downward trend, moneywise, for the new Star Wars movies from 'The Force Awakens' onwards and the qualitative agreement is only apparent with 'Rogue One', which has been the single Disney Star Wars movie to have achieved any kind of positive consensus among fans and non-fans alike.

Plus 'Solo' flopped and flopped hard. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Disney certainly aren't trying to make it out that it did even ok money.

Sure, the silly YouTube stuff that only offer clickbait dancing in the graves of certain movies becomes tiresome after a very short while. But Disney Star Wars movies aren't in a good place either, irrespective of the YouTube blather.

I never said Solo didn't flop, I said we don't know the final budget so can't know just how much of a failure it was in dollar terms.

And as Johnny already eluded to, it's pretty standard behaviour where diminishing returns applies with trilogies, the last part often showing a drop-off from the original's success. Interest wanes, audiences attention moves elsewhere, it's just how it goes. In fact I'd be so bold as to say the average trilogy trends downward or holds steady, not upward. Ignoring the parallel, internal expectation of exponential growth as budgets increase.

I'm sure the new trilogy will be debated many years from now; and once the dust settles it'll be very interesting to see where the critical / popular consensus lies with ̵Last Jedi in particular. IT wouldn't be the first film, or series of films, that find itself having revised appraisals.

johnny_ultimate · 16-06-2021 4:12pm

Tony EH wrote: »

The fact that 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' made less money than 'Star Wars' doesn't really mean that it's ordained that the Disney Star Wars movies would do the same.

Nor would I suggest it does. I just think it's a striking fact very conveniently ignored when people fallaciously cite box office returns as some sort of 'gotcha!' when discussing the successes and/or failures of modern Star Wars

We are both in absolute agreement that box office is in no way, shape or form indicative of the actual quality of a film.

(Also somewhat applies to the prequels as well, incidentally, although Episode III leap-frogged Episode II - which if anything suggests quality of a predecessor does not directly correlate with success of its sequel :pac:)

silverharp · 16-06-2021 4:12pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If only there was precedent for the second and third films in a Star Wars trilogy earning substantially less than the first... if only...

Return of the Jedi did nearly twice as well as the first of that trilogy. So Ill guess you are talking about the second trilogy which my only memory was they were highly criticised at the time, erm so yeah if you are saying they messed up relatively speaking in 2 of the 3 trilogies, I cant argue with that.

Tony EH · 16-06-2021 4:14pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I never said Solo didn't flop, I said we don't know the final budget so can't know just how much of a failure it was in dollar terms.

Ok. Well, it failed and failed hard so.

pixelburp wrote: »

And as Johnny already eluded to, it's pretty standard behaviour where diminishing returns applies with trilogies, the last part often showing a drop-off from the original's success. Interest wanes, audiences attention moves elsewhere, it's just how it goes. In fact I'd be so bold as to say the average trilogy trends downward or holds steady, not upward. Ignoring the parallel, internal expectation of exponential growth as budgets increase.

And I'll repeat that nothing is ordained in that respect.

I'll add, too, that the film series at the heart of the thread bucks that idea. Last Crusade made more than Temple and Crystal Skull beat them all.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm sure the new trilogy will be debated many years from now; and once the dust settles it'll be very interesting to see where the critical / popular consensus lies with ̵Last Jedi in particular. IT wouldn't be the first film, or series of films, that find itself having revised appraisals.

I'm sure it will. But right now, I'd lay bets that the overwhelming consensus is that the sequel trilogy was, at best, disappointing to the vast majority of viewers.

johnny_ultimate · 16-06-2021 4:28pm

silverharp wrote: »

Return of the Jedi did nearly twice as well as the first of that trilogy.

It didn't though.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchise/fr3125251845/

(Worldwide TESB comfortably overtakes ROTJ)

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Comments