- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Star Wars: TROS Tracking for an Opening Weekend Range: $185 – 225 million
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:30 pm to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:30 pm to RLDSC FAN
1. This is the lowest for the trilogy, which will be the first time that's happened.
2. I highly suspect the tracking estimate is still over inflated, I'm thinking it will do more like $150-175
3. Look for it to have a STEEP drop off the 2nd week, much like TLJ did.
4. Star Wars quality and money generated hasn't meant anything for decades. It makes money off inertia alone more than quality, it hasn't been good since 1983.
Disney isn't cancelling Star Wars movies right and left because the IP is doing well.
2. I highly suspect the tracking estimate is still over inflated, I'm thinking it will do more like $150-175
3. Look for it to have a STEEP drop off the 2nd week, much like TLJ did.
4. Star Wars quality and money generated hasn't meant anything for decades. It makes money off inertia alone more than quality, it hasn't been good since 1983.
Disney isn't cancelling Star Wars movies right and left because the IP is doing well.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 5:33 pm
0
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:47 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
What exactly are you arguing here?
that
quote:
The vast majority of franchises see a decline in box office from the first film to the second film. This phenomenon isn't unique to Star Wars.
tell that to the people who claim TLJ destroyed the franchise.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:52 pm to Dr RC
quote:
tell that to the people who claim TLJ destroyed the franchise.
You are forgetting the movie that came between The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker. Solo? Yeah...it flopped. The first live action Star Wars film to ever do so. Most analysts attributed that flop to the backlash from The Last Jedi.
The other Star Wars spinoff, Rogue One, grossed over a billion dollars.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:52 pm to Dr RC
You edited your post in some gotcha attempt. Nice try cuck.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 6:02 pm to RollTide1987
And Han had the most interesting backstory of the big 3 from the OT. Any writer/director worth their salt could have spent a week, maybe two and have a great action/adventure movie set to go. Hell just watch the Indiana Jones trilogy, put it in space with a Star Wars coat of paint and boom... GREATNESS.
Instead we get hipster Lando, a love story with no point, Vision with face stretchmarks, a sassy independent droid who wants to bone Lando, a little amphibian alien who sounded like he was imported from a 90s CBS laughtrack sitcom that got canceled after 30 episodes, and a Han who had the charisma and pull of a half eaten yellow apple.
November 12th will tell me a lot about what we can expect moving forward with Star Wars.
Instead we get hipster Lando, a love story with no point, Vision with face stretchmarks, a sassy independent droid who wants to bone Lando, a little amphibian alien who sounded like he was imported from a 90s CBS laughtrack sitcom that got canceled after 30 episodes, and a Han who had the charisma and pull of a half eaten yellow apple.
November 12th will tell me a lot about what we can expect moving forward with Star Wars.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:46 pm to RollTide1987
Solo flopped b/c Ron Howard essentially had to reshoot the entire thing when he came on. Had it stayed at a $150m budget it's returns, while not normal SW numbers, would have been acceptable.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 8:49 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
You edited your post in some gotcha attempt. Nice try cuck.
I slightly edit most of my posts. Usually it's within a couple minutes of posting b/c I have a bad habit of not reading them until I've already clicked submit. The original post always had WW for the worldwide numbers in it though. The edit was for formatting b/c I originally had a blank line between each movie and hadn't bolded the movie titles. Not my fault you were too lazy to follow the links that make it clear as day I was giving out the worldwide numbers.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 10:16 pm to Dr RC
No it still would have been a flop. There is no excuse for a live action Star Wars movie with a budget that high featuring a character with backstory and intrigue galore not to hit a $1 billion WW.
Rogue One did it with a cast of nobodies in the lore. A story with Han and Chewie out being bad arse outlaws can’t be worth a damn and make some good coin?
Shame on you for excusing that crap. Hell at least TLJ is unintentional comedy and lesson on what not to do with a film franchise. Solo was just dookie. Irredeemable, inexcusable, unacceptable poop.
Rogue One did it with a cast of nobodies in the lore. A story with Han and Chewie out being bad arse outlaws can’t be worth a damn and make some good coin?
Shame on you for excusing that crap. Hell at least TLJ is unintentional comedy and lesson on what not to do with a film franchise. Solo was just dookie. Irredeemable, inexcusable, unacceptable poop.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 10:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The vast majority of franchises see a decline in box office from the first film to the second film. This phenomenon isn't unique to Star Wars.
You were saying?
Avengers - $392m
Ultron - $392m
Infinity War - $640m
Endgame - $1.2 BILLION
That’s how you make movie?
Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter say hello too.
As someone else said, it’s pathetic that the 9th and final installment of this alleged Skywalker saga is worried about a jumanji sequel. Every other movie wanted to get the hell away from infinity war and endgame.
It saddens me that I don’t care about this movie. I want to want to see it, but I won’t pay to see it. I’m so much of a Star Wars nerd that I named my dogs Luke and Leia, since they were brother and sister.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 10/30/19 at 3:06 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Harry Potter say hello too.
Domestic grosses of the first three HPs
Sorcerer's Stone: $318 million
Chamber of Secrets: $292 million
Prisoner of Azkhaban: $249 million
Hmm. Trending in the wrong direction. What if I include the next four?
Goblet of Fire: $290 million
Order of the Phoenix: $292
Half-Blood Prince: $302
Deathly Hallows part 1: $296
The last HP ($381 million) was the only one to gross more than the very first one, domestically. Harry, please say hello to the guy who didn't do the quick research before he said something on the internet.
The majority of franchises do see a drop in box office between first and second films. Congratulations on identifying two outliers, though Avengers doesn't actually count since inflation makes the first $392 million worth more. So, congratulations on identifying one exception, and misidentifying two others.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 3:13 am to Dr RC
quote:
Solo flopped b/c Ron Howard essentially had to reshoot the entire thing when he came on.
They essentially had to re-shoot all of Rogue One after Disney disapproved of the first cut. That didn't seem to hurt that film at all.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 3:17 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
You were saying?
There are always going to be outliers that defeat the norm. Hence why I used a caveat at the beginning of my sentence.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 3:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
They essentially had to re-shoot all of Rogue One after Disney disapproved of the first cut. That didn't seem to hurt that film at all.
Rouge One's budget got out of control too at $265m but Solo's hit $300m. It had a shitload of bad press starting from the moment it was announced, then the supposed hiring of an acting coach for Ehrenreich, the firing of the directors that made the cast so happy they all clapped and cheered when it was announced on set, and generally a ton of people wanting it to fail for various reasons.
Again, had it stayed on budget the returns would have been fine. If it had come out in December instead of just 5 months after LTJ it probably would have done better as well. Most people who actually saw seem to like it well enough. It was never going to be a billion dollar kind of movie unless Harrison Ford himself was in it so IDK why that was expected. Rouge One going that high was the real surprise IMO.
This post was edited on 10/30/19 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 10/30/19 at 5:08 pm to Dr RC
Let’s assume it stayed at a $150 million budget - which would have been by far the lowest of a live action SW movie made post 1983. You’re still looking at least another $75 million on marketing, minimum, probably closer to $100 million. So that’s at least $225 million in P+A costs.
It grossed $392 million WW. Generally, studios keep half their gross. Disney is notorious for their negotiations with theater chains and generally keeps a higher percentage of the BO grosses for their tentpole releases - usually upper 50s to lower 60s. So let’s assume the House of Mouse got exactly 60%, which is pretty high, but again, I am being fair here.
That would mean Disney’s cut of the pie is at 235 million. So going with the low end in both the original P+A costs and on the high end in their cut of the gross, the Mouse would have walked away with a box office profit of $10 million on Solo.
I want you to let that fact sink in while you try to defend what Kathleen Kennedy did to the Star Wars franchise.
It grossed $392 million WW. Generally, studios keep half their gross. Disney is notorious for their negotiations with theater chains and generally keeps a higher percentage of the BO grosses for their tentpole releases - usually upper 50s to lower 60s. So let’s assume the House of Mouse got exactly 60%, which is pretty high, but again, I am being fair here.
That would mean Disney’s cut of the pie is at 235 million. So going with the low end in both the original P+A costs and on the high end in their cut of the gross, the Mouse would have walked away with a box office profit of $10 million on Solo.
I want you to let that fact sink in while you try to defend what Kathleen Kennedy did to the Star Wars franchise.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 5:21 pm to RLDSC FAN
I actually think this one is going to be OK. I know a lot of people have doubts. But I think Disney is desperate to make this one appealing to everyone. And I think for the most part they'll succeed. Let's put it this way. I would be shocked if it was not at least "OK" to the majority of audiences.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 5:58 pm to TheeRealCarolina
Look at you, still thinking the box office is the only way Disney makes money.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 6:48 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
They lost money on Solo. And I’m not just talking about at the box office.
I was just at Disney World. I saw zero references to that movie less than 18 months after it came out. And I went in every single Star Wars store/attraction at Disney Springs and Hollywood Studios.
It was a huge flop dude. If Kathleen Kennedy didn’t “get coffee” for Spielberg back in the day, she would have received the same treatment the execs responsible for Treasure Planet, John Carter, and Mars Needs Moms did.
I was just at Disney World. I saw zero references to that movie less than 18 months after it came out. And I went in every single Star Wars store/attraction at Disney Springs and Hollywood Studios.
It was a huge flop dude. If Kathleen Kennedy didn’t “get coffee” for Spielberg back in the day, she would have received the same treatment the execs responsible for Treasure Planet, John Carter, and Mars Needs Moms did.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 7:40 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
They lost money on Solo.
It's 2019. The monetization of films makes it all but impossible for anything in a franchise like Star Wars to lose money. Solo will turn a profit, and probably already has.
If there's anything to be learned from it, it's not to oversaturate the market and not to micromanage creativity.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Not even close dude.
The over saturation excuse bears no excuse especially with Disney properties since they had 3 MCU films come out with a 140 day period, and had a strong of big blockbusters coming out in successive months that each grossed over a billion.
It was a huge flop. Don’t start your typical white knighting for a clear failure.
The over saturation excuse bears no excuse especially with Disney properties since they had 3 MCU films come out with a 140 day period, and had a strong of big blockbusters coming out in successive months that each grossed over a billion.
It was a huge flop. Don’t start your typical white knighting for a clear failure.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 10:52 pm to TheeRealCarolina
quote:
they had 3 MCU films come out with a 140 day period
This isn't useful. It isn't even close to the same thing.
quote:
It was a huge flop. Don’t start your typical white knighting for a clear failure.
You can repeat this garbage as many times as you want. It still won't be true. You simply don't understand how any of it works, and that's ok.
Solo will make Disney money, and it's really weird to fight so hard against that.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News