• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Wkd Box Office - 1•12-14•18 - Audiences up for another game of Jumanji. Mixed results for newcomers.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blader

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,620
Aaron said:
SW being annual seems like a legitimate mistake, and that's coming from someone who generally likes the new movies.

I'm guessing Solo will really test that theory. Rogue One was still a monster thanks to the novelty of a new Star Wars, but Solo is only five months after the third movie in just two years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know there are a lot of mitigating factors for this, but the bottom line from Disney's POV is that the three annualized Star Wars movies are also the three top-grossing Star Wars movies ever. I think Solo and IX would need to be serious drops from those successes for them to begin reconsidering the annual strategy.
 

Deleted member 887

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,738
Blader said:
I know there are a lot of mitigating factors for this, but the bottom line from Disney's POV is that the three annualized Star Wars movies are also the three top-grossing Star Wars movies ever. I think Solo and IX would need to be serious drops from those successes for them to begin reconsidering the annual strategy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not only that. But after SW 9, we'll get another spinoff and then we'll be in full Rian Johnson trilogy mode.
 
Bronx-Man

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
Blader said:
I know there are a lot of mitigating factors for this, but the bottom line from Disney's POV is that the three annualized Star Wars movies are also the three top-grossing Star Wars movies ever. I think Solo and IX would need to be serious drops from those successes for them to begin reconsidering the annual strategy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Solo will most definitely be a serious drop from Rogue One.
 
Last edited:

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Boke18 said:
Not only that. But after SW 9, we'll get another spinoff and then we'll be in full Rian Johnson trilogy mode.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With apparently no end to the anthology films either while the merchandise sales continue to be eroded.

I mean is their end goal to reduce StarWars to a sub MCU level property? I'm not sure how the numbers match up, but are they really going to be satisfied with a movie a year being on or below the performance of an MCU film by the time RJs trilogy is done?

Star Wars 'Last Jedi' Toy Shipments Down Sharply From 'Rogue One' 'Force Awakens'
6,587 containers of Star Wars gear were shipped in the seven months leading up to The Last Jedi, but that's down 47 percent from the seven months leading to Rogue One in 2016 and off 56 percent from the same time period ahead of The Force Awakens in 2015.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...-shipments-down-sharply-force-awakens-1069479


Why Aren't Star Wars Toys Selling As Well This Year?
They also suggest "retailers are trying to gain a sense of 'what the steady state' of Star Wars product is," though looking at the numbers isn't hard: Star Wars toys were the top brand of 2016 with nearly $760 million in sales, and they were also the #1 property in 2015, with similar numbers. This year? Bested by Nerf and Pokemon.

Not only did TLJ give a bump to sales coming off of RO sales are downsignificantly with the second entry featuring these new characters. toysrus is obviously going to have somewhat of an impact, but probably not to that degree, the more interesting thing is to see it lose out to nerf and Pokemon.
 
hodayathink

hodayathink

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,055
Aaron said:
SW being annual seems like a legitimate mistake, and that's coming from someone who generally likes the new movies.

I'm guessing Solo will really test that theory. Rogue One was still a monster thanks to the novelty of a new Star Wars, but Solo is only five months after the third movie in just two years.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Disney, as a company, would probably rather make $700M-1.3B every year than make $1.5-2B every 2-3 years. Even if there were no Rogue One or Solo and The Last Jedi dropped next year, we'd still be seeing a drop from what TFA did.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
hodayathink said:
Disney, as a company, would probably rather make $700M-1.3B every year than make $1.5-2B every 2-3 years. Even if there were no Rogue One or Solo and The Last Jedi dropped next year, we'd still be seeing a drop from what TFA did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly I don't even know if that's the floor here. Someone said a while ago that the RJ trilogy as well as the yearly anthology films would give audiences a nice 'break' until the next numbered trilogy. I mean people do realize.... that's like 8 more movies over 8 years since we still have Solo and IX to come. TLJ is down 700 million (probably) over TFA, I'm expecting Solo to be down hugely over RO and then.....

Maybe JJ can stabilize things with IX but all the hires fires and costly reshoots point to a systemic problem at Lucasfilms or in how Kathleen Kennedy is managing the property.
 
MHWilliams

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
The "steady state" is a part of what I'm talking about this the films as well. Audiences react differently to a series with 1 year gap, 3-4 year gap, or 10 year gap. Merchandise will follow, especially since those numbers pre-date the film. Star Wars toy sales doubled for 2014 (pre-TFA) to 2015 (TFA), so somewhere in-between the "no new Star Wars" and "Rogue One" in probably the middle ground.

The mental math is: TFA did $2 billion, but that's not sustainable per film unless they're A) spread out and B) always events. So, that puts that number out of the running. Rogue One and TLJ are $1 billion and $1.27 billion respectively. So, do you bet on a $2 billion film every few years, or a billion every year? Problem is, we don't know what the average float for Star Wars is. Maybe it's a billion. Maybe it's $900 million. We don't know.

Seeya said:
I'm expecting Solo to be down hugely over RO
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, but that's not really a problem with Solo or a trend. I honestly don't think Solo would've ever be a billion+ film.
 
Last edited:
broncobuster

broncobuster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,139
Interesting note about Tomb Raider. The writer is also on Captain Marvel and Gotham City Sirens, as well as Sherlock Holmes 3.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
MHWilliams said:
The "steady state" is a part of what I'm talking about this the films as well. Audiences react differently to a series with 1 year gap, 3-4 year gap, or 10 year gap. Merchandise will follow, especially since those numbers pre-date the film. Star Wars toy sales doubled for 2014 (pre-TFA) to 2015 (TFA), so somewhere in-between the "no new Star Wars" and "Rogue One" in probably the middle ground.

The mental math is: TFA did $2 billion, but that's not sustainable per film unless they're A) spread out and B) always events. So, that puts that number out of the running. Rogue One and TLJ are $1 billion and $1.27 billion respectively. So, do you bet on a $2 billion film every few years, or a billion every year? Problem is, we don't know what the average float for Star Wars is. Maybe it's a billion. Maybe it's $900 million. We don't know.



Yeah, but that's not really a problem with Solo or a trend. I honestly don't think Solo would've ever be a billion+ film.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's a good point about the pre TFA numbers I was trying to find those. Still, while we can sort of find some comparable properties I don't think that there has been anything like this in terms of a mega blockbuster truely being annualized. I think the floor, especially with something as relatively niche as Sci-fi is going to be lower than most of us realize.

Once you take away that cultural sheen, I don't think there's a lot to the property that can get people to tune in every year on end.

It's not like the MCU, where keeping it fresh is as simple as a new hero with essentially a completely different setting and different genre trappings sprinkled in. It's a lot easier to be flexible in the MCU than it is StarWars because the character isn't the world.

Even with Rogue One it's this awkward situation where you almost can't make a StarWars movie that isn't a StarWars movie, you can only end up making a StarWars movie that is also a war movie if that makes any sense. StarWars is the exceptional 'character' with a cast inside of it where as MCU is a backdrop for a character that is exceptional.

The world of StarWars is its distinguishing element, where as with the MCU it's the entirely the Hero and subject matter of that entry.
 
Last edited:
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
Whats Den of Thieves tracking? Gerald Butler is the new Nick Cage
 
Bronx-Man

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
 
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
I like Chris, I think he just takes the wrong non MCU roles.
 
Heshinsi

Heshinsi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
Bronx-Man said:
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lucy was massive for Scarlett, and she's had other movies that have done well. Paul Rudd has been in a few successful comedies, and so has Evangeline Lily (she's the most successful one with the two Hobbit films making nearly $1B each).
 
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
Bronx-Man said:
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Chris Evans does the indie thing and gets a lot of props from that. But he always said he rather be behind the camera. I haven't seen RDJ in anything since The Judge bombed
 
SupremeWu

SupremeWu

Banned
Dec 19, 2017
2,856
Never once in this world will anyone ever utter the words 'Holy shit it stars Chris Helmsworth we gotta go watch',

Not one time will that happen ever, ever.
 
MHWilliams

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
Bronx-Man said:
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I keep saying star power don't matter anymore. Last time I said this, Denzel was brought up, but Roman J. Israel, Esq didn't burn up the charts. DiCaprio maybe, but I think he just picks the right projects to make his acting chops shine.
 
Bronx-Man

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
MHWilliams said:
I keep saying star power don't matter anymore. Last time I said this, Denzel was brought up, but Roman J. Israel, Esq didn't burn up the charts. DiCaprio maybe, but I think he just picks the right projects to make his acting chops shine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
COULD'VE been Cruise but he had to go with The Mummy and fuck up his rep.
 
berzeli

berzeli

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,384
Bronx-Man said:
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Define "well".
Mark Ruffalo has had two Now You See Me (though I won't hold that against him), was in Spotlight, Foxcatcher, and did an HBO original film The Normal Heart. I think he might have have had the best non-Avengers stuff, but maybe not as high profile maybe as someone like Scarlett.
 
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
MHWilliams said:
I keep saying star power don't matter anymore. Last time I said this, Denzel was brought up, but Roman J. Israel, Esq didn't burn up the charts. DiCaprio maybe, but I think he just picks the right projects to make his acting chops shine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You also use made up terms like Kino
 
MHWilliams

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
Slayven said:
You also use made up terms like Kino
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Made up? How dare you, sir! It's a term for the classiest of ladies and gentlemen.
1.jpg
 
broncobuster

broncobuster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,139
I'll give Hemsworth credit and say he's definitely a better actor than Evans and Pratt based on Rush alone.

Sometimes it's strange to see actors who're propelled to leading man status be legit good in smaller projects. Like, Charlie Hunnam in Lost City of Z really surprised me. And I never thought Chris Pine was a poor actor, but Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit wasn't exactly showcasing his talent.
 
Prompto

Prompto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,989
Bronx-Man said:
Have any of the Avengers done well movie-wise outside of their superhero stuff? Pratt has Jurassic World but it's not like anyone goes to that for him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Scarlett Johansson was doing really good until Ghost in the Shell and Rough Night both bombed. Jeremy Renner had Arrival, Mission Impossible, American Hustle. Mark Ruffalo had the Now You See Me films, Foxcatcher, and Spotlight. Zoe Saldana has Star Trek and Avatar. Imitation Game starring Benedict Cumberbatch grossed 200 million on a 13 million budget and got him an Oscar nod. Those are the only ones I can think of though.
 
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
berzeli said:
Define "well".
Mark Ruffalo has had two Now You See Me (though I won't hold that against him), was in Spotlight, Foxcatcher, and did an HBO original film The Normal Heart. I think he might have have had the best non-Avengers stuff, but maybe not as high profile maybe as someone like Scarlett.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We will not slander the Now you see me cinematic universe
 
berzeli

berzeli

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,384
Slayven said:
We will not slander the Now you see me cinematic universe
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know for a fact I've seen the first one because I saw it with a friend who remembers that we did it. I don't think I can mention anything that happens in the film.

I'm 90% sure the real magic is letting the audience believe they were getting an actual film.
 
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,143
Status
Not open for further replies.