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

RayCun

The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were massively profitable. Saying they weren't as profitable as Forbes predicted is weak ****. Rogue One was also a hit.

Solo made a loss at the box office, yeah. Not hundreds of millions, but a loss.

Trying to position this as fallout from The Last Jedi is laughable. If TLJ was the problem, why was that a hit? Oh, I know - because you didn't like TLJ but you can't complain that Solo pissed on your childhood, so if Solo did badly it has to be the fault of TLJ.

So three of the four Star Wars movies produced in her time have been hits. And since this is Disney, they don't even require big box office, just ongoing success to keep the movies in the public eye and keep the toys and rides going.

That's not a record that leads to people being sacked. The only reason this is a discussion is because of whiny man babies who are scared of SJWs under the bed.

Arne_Saknussem

RayCun wrote: »

Solo made a loss at the box office, yeah. Not hundreds of millions, but a loss.

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

RayCun wrote: »

Trying to position this as fallout from The Last Jedi is laughable. If TLJ was the problem, why was that a hit?

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.

RayCun wrote: »

Trying to position this as fallout from The Last Jedi is laughable.

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

RayCun wrote: »

And since this is Disney, they don't even require big box office, just ongoing success to keep the movies in the public eye and keep the toys and rides going.

.

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.

RayCun wrote: »

That's not a record that leads to people being sacked.

People have been sacked for a lot less than turning Star Wars into loss maker.

RayCun

Variety says expected revenue of 450 off costs of about 400, Bloomberg and Hollywood Reporter predict losses of about 50.
I'm sure there's a youtuber out there claiming losses of several billion.

The Last Jedi made about 400 million profit, the most of any movie last year. I don't think the investors are wailing that a movie featuring Mark ! Hamill! should have made more.

So here we are, one movie made by the evil and incompetent Rian Johnson, full of SJW cooties and disrespect for the heroes of the original trilogy.
And one movie featuring a straight white male hero, backstory, and directed by the safe pair of hands himself.

One movie was a massive success, the other was a failure. Unfortunately for your argument, the wrong ones.

Arne_Saknussem

RayCun wrote: »

Variety says expected revenue of 450 off costs of about 400, Bloomberg and Hollywood Reporter predict losses of about 50.
I'm sure there's a youtuber out there claiming losses of several billion.

The Last Jedi made about 400 million profit, the most of any movie last year. I don't think the investors are wailing that a movie featuring Mark ! Hamill! should have made more.

So here we are, one movie made by the evil and incompetent Rian Johnson, full of SJW cooties and disrespect for the heroes of the original trilogy.
And one movie featuring a straight white male hero, backstory, and directed by the safe pair of hands himself.

One movie was a massive success, the other was a failure. Unfortunately for your argument, the wrong ones.

I never mentioned the term SJW or anyones race.

I said Solo suffered because TLJ was ****e, but continue to argue against things you're just making up if it makes you happy.

And if costs were $400m then it needs to make minimum $750m odd at the box office to break even(cinema's pocket 40-45% depending on region). It's currently at $357,278,262 worldwide.

RayCun

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

I never mentioned the term SJW or anyones race.

I said Solo suffered because TLJ was ****e, but continue to argue against things you're just making up if it makes you happy.

And if costs were $400m then it needs to make minimum $750m odd at the box office to break even(cinema's pocket 40-45% depending on region). It's currently at $357,278,262 worldwide.

You might not have, but it's a recurring theme in criticism of TLJ. You can argue with Variety about the numbers for Solo, I don't really care. You are still onto a losing argument if you are claiming that Solo is a box office failure because of TLJ, when TLJ (and Rogue One, which had many similar criticisms) was a huge success.

Arne_Saknussem

RayCun wrote: »

You might not have, but it's a recurring theme in criticism of TLJ. You can argue with Variety about the numbers for Solo, I don't really care. You are still onto a losing argument if you are claiming that Solo is a box office failure because of TLJ, when TLJ (and Rogue One, which had many similar criticisms) was a huge success.

Variety's figure of $400m(promotional budget usually mirrors original production budget which was $125, added to eventual production spend which was "north of $250m" according to Forbes) sounds plausible to me.

A lot of fans didn't like TLJ, people talk about fans not turning up to the next film in a franchise after not liking the last one like it's a pie in the sky theory


What's the reason Solo is currently at less than a 3rd of the gross of Rogue One in your opinion?

FunLover18

BoxOfficeMojo doesn't have TLJ in the top 100 for biggest second weekend drop, in fact it has it at number 16 for biggest second weekend (unless they're talking purely domestic). Could you clarify where you got your info on the worst second week drop off in history?

In terms of quality TLJ scores higher than Solo on imdb, metacritic and its tomatometer score is higher - the audience score is significantly lower but I do believe there was a campaign by upset fans although I could be misremembering. Regardless the critics resoundingly preferred TLJ and I would say that reviews were a factor in the poor box office from Solo. However I think (and this is just my opinion) the biggest factor in Solo's poor performance was the fact that no one wanted or was interested in a Solo prequel, not even the fans judging by the Solo thread on here during the build up and marketing just wasn't good enough to spark the fires on intrigue.

Arne_Saknussem

FunLover18 wrote: »

BoxOfficeMojo doesn't have TLJ in the top 100 for biggest second weekend drop, in fact it has it at number 16 for biggest second weekend (unless they're talking purely domestic). Could you clarify where you got your info on the worst second week drop off in history?

In terms of quality TLJ scores higher than Solo on imdb, metacritic and its tomatometer score is higher - the audience score is significantly lower but I do believe there was a campaign by upset fans although I could be misremembering. Regardless the critics resoundingly preferred TLJ and I would say that reviews were a factor in the poor box office from Solo. However I think (and this is just my opinion) the biggest factor in Solo's poor performance was the fact that no one wanted or was interested in a Solo prequel, not even the fans judging by the Solo thread on here during the build up and marketing just wasn't good enough to spark the fires on intrigue.

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.


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?

RayCun

The reason for Solo's poor performance? Films in the main line of the franchise are going to have more of a must see factor than spin offs. People needed a reason to go see Solo. But the general reaction seems to be that it is competent and uncontroversial and that's about it.

Compare to Rogue One, which was seen as an interesting spin on the story. Or, if we look outside this franchise, Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok were both movies that had a clear vision beyond filling a gap in the release schedule.

Arne_Saknussem

RayCun wrote: »

The reason for Solo's poor performance? Films in the main line of the franchise are going to have more of a must see factor than spin offs. People needed a reason to go see Solo. But the general reaction seems to be that it is competent and uncontroversial and that's about it.

Compare to Rogue One, which was seen as an interesting spin on the story. Or, if we look outside this franchise, Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok were both movies that had a clear vision beyond filling a gap in the release schedule.

They're also from a franchise that hasn't had a film that split the fanbase like TLJ.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

HandsomeBob

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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::rolleyes:

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.

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).

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.

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".

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.

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

Snake Plisken

Couple of factors affected Solos poor outing that includes so many star wars movies released so close together, I don't think people wanted to see a Solo back story say compared to an Obi Wan story. I also think it was marketed poorly. First Ad released we didn't even hear Han speak.
Also a lot of fans weren't convinced by Alden Ehrenrrich's casting. I think dislike of TLJ didn't influence the numbers that much.

FunLover18

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

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.

Where does this figure come from? 44% of what?

I fail to see how TLJ DVD sales has any bearing on the Solo box office?

You're claiming that Solo performance is as a direct result of TLJ's reception, I can't disprove it when you haven't provided sufficient evidence to back that up, you've merely cited financial statistics and expect me to believe that they directly correlate because it has Star Wars in the title. TLJ made 1.3 billion, Solo has made less than 400 million and your argument is that the failure of the latter is due to the dissatisfaction with the former. I've heard of people reevaluating a film but not to the point of 900 million in six months.

Arne_Saknussem

FunLover18 wrote: »

Where does this figure come from? 44% of what?

I fail to see how TLJ DVD sales has any bearing on the Solo box office?

You're claiming that Solo performance is as a direct result of TLJ's reception, I can't disprove it when you haven't provided sufficient evidence to back that up, you've merely cited financial statistics and expect me to believe that they directly correlate because it has Star Wars in the title. TLJ made 1.3 billion, Solo has made less than 400 million and your argument is that the failure of the latter is due to the dissatisfaction with the former. I've heard of people reevaluating a film but not to the point of 900 million in six months.

44% of TFA first week sales.

https://bamsmackpow.com/2018/06/10/star-wars-last-jedi-home-media- numbers/

And i made the point in relation to a poster who said that people who didn't like TLJ were a tiny minority, not in relation to it affecting Solo. And the fact that TLJ lower numbers vs TFA was down to casual cinema goers.

My argument is that a number of factors affected the performance of Solo, chief among them dissatisfaction with TLJ. And i think it's better to compare Saga films to each other, same with Star Wars Stories.

So thats $2.05bn -> $1.3bn for Saga, $1.06bn --> $355m for Solo currently.

Sad Professor

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

My argument is that a number of factors affected the performance of Solo, chief among them dissatisfaction with TLJ. And i think it's better to compare Saga films to each other, same with Star Wars Stories.

So thats $2.05bn -> $1.3bn for Saga, $1.06bn --> $355m for Solo currently.

Okay, so if dissatisfaction with TLJ (a saga film) was the chief cause of Solo's (non-saga film) box office, then by that logic could it not be claimed that the reason TLJ only made 1.3b instead of 1.7b is because people were dissatisfied with Rogue One? You are saying saga films should be compared with each other and then in the same breath claiming that the negative reception to the previous a saga film influenced the box office of a non-saga film.

Arne_Saknussem

Sad Professor wrote: »

Okay, so if dissatisfaction with TLJ (a saga film) was the chief cause of Solo's (non-saga film) box office, then by that logic could it not be claimed that the reason TLJ only made 1.3b instead of 1.7b is because people were dissatisfied with Rogue One? You are saying saga films should be compared with each other and then in the same breath claiming that the negative reception to the previous a saga film influenced the box office of a non-saga film.

You can compare Solo to TLJ if you want, but it only makes the figures look worse.

Non-Saga films don't make as much as Saga films, that's the reason i said they should be compared that way.

Now i don't think Rogue One split the fans the way TLJ did. You can make that argument if you want but it falls down when you see the excellent opening weekend numbers for TLJ($220m to TFA $240), whereas Solo's opening weekend numbers stank. TLJ falloff came later when a lot of the fans didn't return.

conorhal

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 extrardinary.

Fine. Let's do that so.
Ivan Ortega (a professional editor) had done a pretty damn good in his edit of fixing the problems with the film, of which there are A LOT.
Perhaps take a look at these two scenes through the eyes of a film editor and a fan as explains what is so wrong with them and how to easily fix them.

It would be interesting to know what you make of the changes.

Here he fixes the dumbest and most contentious moment in Starwars that really alienated fans:

Here he deals with the clunky, weird opening and how the tension of the situation and the threat of the First Order are restored:

It's pretty impressive that only using their own footage, a fan can both explain and fix what the best that Disney couldn't even see apparently.

RayCun

Great, more fanfiction from people who are disappointed that Luke isn't a superhero.

Sad Professor

Ugh, more videos of dudes explaining what's wrong with the movie. Just what this thread needs.

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. You can't ADR in Luke saying "take it, you need it more than me" - first because it would be really obvious, and second because you'd then have to reshoot the rest of the movie to make Luke's character match this new, character-defining moment you've created at the start of the film.

If fans did have access to the raw footage, they could probably change the take of Luke throwing away the lightsaber to something less comic, but that's clearly not enough for them. They don't want a movie with the comedy moments left out, they want a different movie.

I get people's issues with Luke - I don't agree with them (I love him throwing away the lightsaber) - but you can't "fix" them by re-editing the movie. That's Luke's character in TLJ. It's in the script, it's in Hamill's performance, it's the movie Johnson chose to make. Even if you had access to all the raw footage, you can't change that without breaking the film. A professional film editor should know this.

I agree with Ray, these fan edits are basically the 21st century version of fan fiction.

ixoy

If Kennedy resigns, I already feel pity for her successor because, no matter what they do, they're going to be doomed to listen to a huge amount of bloody whining - "It's not enough like the original!" "It's too much like the original!" "Wahh, Luke's gone - it's the Skywalker story and never mind the ton of other characters!" It will be a no-win situation.

conorhal

ixoy wrote: »

If Kennedy resigns, I already feel pity for her successor because, no matter what they do, they're going to be doomed to listen to a huge amount of bloody whining - "It's not enough like the original!" "It's too much like the original!" "Wahh, Luke's gone - it's the Skywalker story and never mind the ton of other characters!" It will be a no-win situation.

Well if reports are true, and I think they are, she still has her job only because nobody want's the job thanks to her poisoning the well.
You're sounding like a whiny spoiled child yourself here, would you like to take your ball and go home?