Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Discuss current events and headline stories, stock market trends, investing, the War on Terrorism, Border Security, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan
Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:57 pm

Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker falls short of opening weekend expectations. Disney stock was the worst performer on the Dow today dropping $2/share. $100M budget for Cats brings in $6.5M amid reports of an updated version with improved visual effects is being rushed to theaters after the film's release.

Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Yawn...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:53 pm

Editor wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:57 pm
Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker falls short of opening weekend expectations. Disney stock was the worst performer on the Dow today dropping $2/share. $100M budget for Cats brings in $6.5M amid reports of an updated version with improved visual effects is being rushed to theaters after the film's release.
DO read this Entertainment Weekly Article regarding Disney Chairman/CEO Bob Iger "betraying" George Lucas in not employing his Star War story outlines et. al. matters regarding the Lucasfilm purchase. Everything Disney Inc. has acquired since the Disney family left the picture (pun intended) has been bastardized, only thing Disney Inc. kept intact after the family left was the family's penchant for squeezing every last penny out of their properties regardless how banal they'd become over time their lawyers legendary for shutting down anything anybody else "improved" upon, including Star Wars during Iger's tenure.

Lucas from what I read true or no "originally-originally" came up with A New Hope (ANH) as a one-off homage to 1913-1969 Classic Hollywood Cinema Saturday Matinee Action Adventure elements of the 1930s Buck Rodgers & Flash Gordon serials in particular, all including myself who'd seen the original 1977 release instantly recognized that! ANH was perfectly timed balm for post USA-Vietnam War late 1970s funk, Disco aside indeed it was a messed-up time culturally speaking!

There's far better fan-produced Star Wars story material in print than anything Disney could come up with thanks to Lucas sitting on his laurels between The Last Jedi (TLJ)and The Phantom Menace, same thing happened with Roddenberry's Star Trek though not as long. Lucas should had walked away from Star Wars after TLJ leaving it to the fan base to produce Star Wars story material, leaving it to others to produce films for them as well. With Disney Inc. now and forever owing Star Wars expect more fan-base derision whilst they - Disney's Inc. - very much not so merrily squeezes every single last possible penny out of the franchise!

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:10 pm

That's interesting - I remember reading that the newest films are closest to what George Lucas had envisioned for the films, and that had G. Lucas been given free reign or an unlimited budget in the original films they likely wouldn't have been the block busters they turned out to be - they struck a happy medium. The fine line between brilliance and failure. The original film, Star Wars, were seen as very risky. The latest iterations of Star Wars are short on cast (story telling) and long on special effects. I watched all but the last two and I wouldn't spend the cost of a movie ticket to watch any of them. I can't find anyone who watched the launch of the original films + the latest ones and that can say that the latest films are better than the originals? And I don't think you could take the same casts in the latest films, put them into the 70s-80s flicks and get the same results. I think even Lucas had underestimated how much of an effect the cast had on the original Star Wars trilogy i.e., Harrison Ford, Hamlin etc. But also when Star Wars was first launched, the special effects were new, then came cgi animation and Jurrasic Park and many other special effects films, audiences were no longer wowed and now films are back to having to tell a good story. I believe Rise of Skywalker needs to hit $1B before making a profit and it looks like they will come in very short of that.
Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Well...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:51 pm

Editor wrote:
Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:10 pm
That's interesting - I remember reading that the newest films are closest to what George Lucas had envisioned for the films, and that had G. Lucas been given free reign or an unlimited budget in the original films they likely wouldn't have been the block busters they turned out to be - they struck a happy medium. The fine line between brilliance and failure. The original film, Star Wars, were seen as very risky. The latest iterations of Star Wars are short on cast (story telling) and long on special effects. I watched all but the last two and I wouldn't spend the cost of a movie ticket to watch any of them. I can't find anyone who watched the launch of the original films + the latest ones and that can say that the latest films are better than the originals? And I don't think you could take the same casts in the latest films, put them into the 70s-80s flicks and get the same results. I think even Lucas had underestimated how much of an effect the cast had on the original Star Wars trilogy i.e., Harrison Ford, Hamlin etc. But also when Star Wars was first launched, the special effects were new, then came cgi animation and Jurrasic Park and many other special effects films, audiences were no longer wowed and now films are back to having to tell a good story. I believe Rise of Skywalker needs to hit $1B before making a profit and it looks like they will come in very short of that.
...I don't know if Lucas had an "unlimited budget" for A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return Of The Jedi they'd been logarithmically better insofar as "better" original cast acting, better scale prop models, different kinds with state of the art animatronics given limited CGI tech of the day yes for sure. I'd not check Star Wars fan sites for period big name star replacements of some characters but Bette Davis would had been terrific replacing Ian McDiarmid as "Empress Palpatine" sneeringly uttering: "Luke...you know we've got rats in the cellar..." straight out of What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? in Return Of The Jedi :shock: Disney Inc. will get their billion, trust me given their legendary ability to squeeze every red cent out of the garbage they'd produced over the decades!

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:51 pm

Star Wars 1977 was shot on a very limited budget as I recall, there may even be a documentary in one of the DVD collector series that documents how hard it was to make Star Wars 1977, and actually the movie was pushed through to the finish (it almost never made it to screen) - the expectation was that it would flop, it didn't of course and the rest is history. Lucas even had a hard time selling the idea of Star Wars 1977 to the film studios and was rejected. As I say it's a fine line between success and failure. In the new films, the prequel trilogy, Lucas was unbounded and hence the movies he made - he didn't have the advantage this time of groundbreaking visual effects and a stellar cast Ford, Hamill, Fisher etc. Disney picked up the rest of the series in 2012. Sure I believe Disney strayed away from Lucas' vision but in my opinion it didn't matter and I think you're right, Disney will probably find a way to make its money back. We'll see how much they miss target $ but the street sees a huge loss.
Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Star Wars Put On Pause...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:11 am

...Disney reportedly did so ostensibly due to lackluster box offices e.g. Solo: A Star Wars Story even though it got good critical reviews, that plus audience fatigue on so many films having been released over the last several years. Next Star Wars film supposedly not due till 2022, same storyline year as Soylent Green 50th anniversary of movie release in 2023 by the way, it supposedly continues on with Rey, meantime The Mandalorian carries the franchise in the way of official canon. This Wikipedia article outlines the history of past non-canon story productions some of which arguably better than what Disney or even Lucas have came up with to date, only those for Star Trek have been around longer per this Wikipedia article regarding the novelizations, franchise fandom always fills in the gaps.

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:33 pm

The budget for Star Wars IV was initially $8M and was scheduled to release at xmas in 1976. Up to that point sci-fi movies never made more than $15M. The budget then grew to $11M missing its xmas debut and in February 1977 the board at 20 Century Fox called-in Alan Ladd who okd the project and ordered him to shut down filming. Ladd talked the board into continuing work on Star Wars for a few more months and this saved the film and his own career. The film ended up making $775M world-wide including the remastered version which was released in 1997 (that I saw in a theater in Houston TX). Adjusted for inflation that would be $2.5B today. Star Wars IV still ranks #1 as the best movie investment ever made and will likely never be matched again. So, Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker budget was $275M, it made $175M on its first weekend - it'll probably gross under $1B. All the other Star Wars films have grossed at or below $1B with similar budgets (i.e., the Prequel and Sequel trilogies) so I'm not sure why the street/wall street is declaring this film a flop and why Disney's stock is being pummeled in the market?
Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

From An Investment Risk Standpoint...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:16 pm

Editor wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:33 pm
The budget for Star Wars IV was initially $8M and was scheduled to release at xmas in 1976. Up to that point sci-fi movies never made more than $15M. The budget then grew to $11M missing its xmas debut and in February 1977 the board at 20 Century Fox called-in Alan Ladd who okd the project and ordered him to shut down filming. Ladd talked the board into continuing work on Star Wars for a few more months and this saved the film and his own career. The film ended up making $775M world-wide including the remastered version which was released in 1997 (that I saw in a theater in Houston TX). Adjusted for inflation that would be $2.5B today. Star Wars IV still ranks #1 as the best movie investment ever made and will likely never be matched again. So, Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker budget was $275M, it made $175M on its first weekend - it'll probably gross under $1B. All the other Star Wars films have grossed at or below $1B with similar budgets (i.e., the Prequel and Sequel trilogies) so I'm not sure why the street/wall street is declaring this film a flop and why Disney's stock is being pummeled in the market?
...possibly given "The Street" operates somewhat like an insurance company insofar as front-loading investment risk for returns latter quicker the better, in Disney's case they'll not "loose" money on any of the Star Wars films, Solo bad as it will make money over the long term. Peter Rader's Waterworld (1995) at $235 production, marketing & distribution was the most expensive film to date though a "Cats-scale" box office disaster ($88 million U.S. Domestic), over the last 24 years it has made money albeit not all of it back for the producers (Gordon Company, Davis Entertainment, Licht/Mueller Film Corporation). Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate (1980) accounting for inflation likely hasn't made money even after undergoing several edits & re-works; badly written "Westerns" near never cut it with audiences IMHO.

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:21 am

It looks like Rise of Skywalker making less than a $1B is just a protest by crazy Star Wars fans not happy with the direction Disney has taken Star Wars, so the film will indeed make allot of money for Disney. Its still baffling why the market is punishing the stock other than it factored in huge gains for the film into the stock price. According to this fan (see below), if the film doesn't make over $1.2B its a flop - this is the day and age we now live in.

Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Yep...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:53 am

Editor wrote:
Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:21 am
It looks like Rise of Skywalker making less than a $1B is just a protest by crazy Star Wars fans not happy with the direction Disney has taken Star Wars, so the film will indeed make allot of money for Disney. Its still baffling why the market is punishing the stock other than it factored in huge gains for the film into the stock price. According to this fan (see below), if the film doesn't make over $1.2B its a flop - this is the day and age we now live in.
Partially agree gains could had been included in pushing up Disney stock pre-release, need to do homework on that. The next Star Wars film ostensibly in 2022 supposedly won't include original cast members but I wouldn't be surprised Disney throws in one or two to keep the fanboys happy, the droids don't demand performance contracts, possibly some left-over "New Hope" stage props showing up as well?

More than tangentially off subject; Dune 2020 is out on December 18th, fake fan trailers been up on YouTube for nearly year now; production supposedly is "in the can". I've read some "Dunesters" aren't happy over how it was produced, Frank Herbert's son Brian supposedly had "blessed" it though. I seriously doubt Dune 2020 will be financially successful ala any of the Star Wars movies; fantasy/sci-fi fanboys "need their fix" till the next comic book action hero, Star Trek, Godzilla, name your aging franchise CGI extravaganza, comes out; Arnold Schwarzenegger's still around :lol:

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:17 am

I watched Dune ages ago, I just remember Sting and the confusing/weird plot and awful special effects. I agree Dune is for sci-fi die-hards that will watch any of this stuff. I watched Dr.Strange last night, what a confusing mess.
Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Yep, It's Bad...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:18 pm

Editor wrote:
Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:17 am
I watched Dune ages ago, I just remember Sting and the confusing/weird plot and awful special effects. I agree Dune is for sci-fi die-hards that will watch any of this stuff. I watched Dr.Strange last night, what a confusing mess.
...though Dune Alternative Edition Redux versions released in 2008, 9 & 12 were produced from 1984 movie & 2000 mini series material, seen parts of them, OK insofar as improved storyline continuity but still to Byzantine for me to follow. Am always game on alternative past & future histories but prefer those based on past & present historical events, OK as well with anachronisms long as they're plausible.

By the way, amongst the more ridiculous to me though still enthralling "past & future histories" are those by James Erwin & Harry Turtledove, former's Rome Sweet Rome has been picked up by Warner Brothers for film production. Phillip K. Dick's Man In The High Castle has been produced for TV though just about everything else he'd written has been filmed or broadcasted. Direct alternatives to real historical events, e.g. scale of Pearl Harbor attack disaster reduced if radar reports were passed on to Admiral Kimmel & General Short in time to get ships under way, fighters in the air before the attack, war still being declared regardless, get my attention anytime, plenty of them around starting with JFK not having been assassinated, him debating Barry Goldwater in 1964, would love to see an Internet production of that!

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Movies: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker and Cats - Box Office Flops

Post by Editor » Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:42 pm

Rome sweet, Rome is an interesting hypothesis, and they do account for the most important factor logistics i.e., resupply and obviously a regiment of of tanks would eventually run out of fuel and ammunition, but they don't have to go way back when to determine what would happen to an army lightly armed against tanks and motorised units, they only had to turn back the page to October 1942 at El Alamein where the Folgore, a lightly armed parachute division (w/ mgs and molotovs, but highly trained) beat back repeated attacks by three British divisions 7th armored, 44th Inf, 50th Inf and 1st Free French Brigade. The Folgore employed many different tactics to deal with 7th Armored tanks (Shermans), usually getting underneath or on top of the tanks and dropping molotovs, lighting up their tanks/engines, disabling tracks etc. Montgomery was eventually forced to attack elsewhere along the line. So an armored unit can be defeated by well trained lightly armed units when the counter attacks are determined. The Romans did have forms of artillery (that's what made their armies effective, a formula that Napoleon would rediscover a thousand years later), my guess is that they would have first tried to disable the running gear of the tanks.

I watched Avengers Age of Ultron last night it's a pretty good movie and very interesting. Avengers: Endgame apparently is the highest grossing film of all time although if you adjust Star Wars IV for inflation both are tied. Battle sequence between the Hulk vs Iron Man enhanced armor is amazing. :clap:

Vince Tassone

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Comandante di Stormo
Comandante di Stormo
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Yes...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:56 pm

Editor wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:42 pm
Rome sweet, Rome is an interesting hypothesis, and they do account for the most important factor logistics i.e., resupply and obviously a regiment of of tanks would eventually run out of fuel and ammunition, but they don't have to go way back when to determine what would happen to an army lightly armed against tanks and motorised units, they only had to turn back the page to October 1942 at El Alamein where the Folgore, a lightly armed parachute division (w/ mgs and molotovs, but highly trained) beat back repeated attacks by three British divisions 7th armored, 44th Inf, 50th Inf and 1st Free French Brigade. The Folgore employed many different tactics to deal with 7th Armored tanks (Shermans), usually getting underneath or on top of the tanks and dropping molotovs, lighting up their tanks/engines, disabling tracks etc. Montgomery was eventually forced to attack elsewhere along the line. So an armored unit can be defeated by well trained lightly armed units when the counter attacks are determined. The Romans did have forms of artillery (that's what made their armies effective, a formula that Napoleon would rediscover a thousand years later), my guess is that they would have first tried to disable the running gear of the tanks...
...but then what's "point" of Rome Sweet Rome? Military bloodbaths assuming the Romans would engage in combat at any point encountering Marines knowing gazillions would be killed by 21st Century weapons? To what end?

I'd be more interested to know how each side would avoid conflict, indeed learn from each other, e.g. American notions Individual Freedom vs. ancient world paternalism well as whole question of slavery given the non-need of slaves by the Marines upending that ancient civilization, 21st Century medical technology & care (that alone automatically would pique their interest in making sure they'd not do them harm), Roman knowledge of ancient peoples, classical scholarly works, e.g. Library of Alexandra was still going then (what a treasure trove that be!), on an on. The Roman's weren't mindless bruits, 100% sure they'd watch, listen, learn whatever from the Marines, impart whatever technological knowledge the latter was willing to provide, e.g. technology for food for starters, will leave out the obvious Hollywood proclivity for "love interests" here :yawn:

Nope, I'd go for Rome Sweet Rome being a "learning experience" literally at the points of guns though without having to resort to needless slaughter, is why the Independence Day, Battleship et. al. hostile Earth alien invasions though good entertainment doesn't do it more me. Arrival which I've not seen likely is more in keeping with diplomacy between technologically & culturally different times in Human history ala substituting the aliens for Marines, just can't buy the notion of mass slaughter even if the Romans did vanquish the Marines when their machines & explosives gave out, am sure there'd be chemists, metallurgists, materials fabricators amongst the ranks who'd be able to make explosives et. al. weapons to continue fending off the legions.

Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Contact:

Re: Yes...

Post by Editor » Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:07 pm

RetiredInKalifornia wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:56 pm
Editor wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:42 pm
Rome sweet, Rome is an interesting hypothesis, and they do account for the most important factor logistics i.e., resupply and obviously a regiment of of tanks would eventually run out of fuel and ammunition, but they don't have to go way back when to determine what would happen to an army lightly armed against tanks and motorised units, they only had to turn back the page to October 1942 at El Alamein where the Folgore, a lightly armed parachute division (w/ mgs and molotovs, but highly trained) beat back repeated attacks by three British divisions 7th armored, 44th Inf, 50th Inf and 1st Free French Brigade. The Folgore employed many different tactics to deal with 7th Armored tanks (Shermans), usually getting underneath or on top of the tanks and dropping molotovs, lighting up their tanks/engines, disabling tracks etc. Montgomery was eventually forced to attack elsewhere along the line. So an armored unit can be defeated by well trained lightly armed units when the counter attacks are determined. The Romans did have forms of artillery (that's what made their armies effective, a formula that Napoleon would rediscover a thousand years later), my guess is that they would have first tried to disable the running gear of the tanks...
...but then what's "point" of Rome Sweet Rome? Military bloodbaths assuming the Romans would engage in combat at any point encountering Marines knowing gazillions would be killed by 21st Century weapons? To what end?

Nope, I'd go for Rome Sweet Rome being a "learning experience" literally at the points of guns though without having to resort to needless slaughter, is why the Independence Day, Battleship et. al. hostile Earth alien invasions though good entertainment doesn't do it more me. Arrival which I've not seen likely is more in keeping with diplomacy between technologically & culturally different times in Human history ala substituting the aliens for Marines, just can't buy the notion of mass slaughter even if the Romans did vanquish the Marines when their machines & explosives gave out, am sure there'd be chemists, metallurgists, materials fabricators amongst the ranks who'd be able to make explosives et. al. weapons to continue fending off the legions.
That's a refined way of looking at it. I think we would need more meat around the plot, such as if the Marines arrive in Rome, do they start shooting, do the Romans attack, how do they interact with each other etc. Roman politics were quiet evolved, the modern day Senate in the US and parliamentary systems like Canada and Britain rely on this governing body, which first appeared during the Roman Republic about 2000 yrs ago - there was a reason why the Romans ruled the known world for almost 1000yrs and their legacy is everywhere. If you read Julius Caesar's The Gallic War you see clearly that the Roman Senate did not want to wage war in Gaul or elsewhere and that Caesar had to find a pretext to invade Gaul/France and later Britain (does this remind you of the Gulf of Tonkin/Iraq WMD?). I don't know if LBJ ever knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a pretext? as far as I know the CIA/military intelligence talked him into an escalation of the war with N. Vietnam - makes you wonder why Trump is so suspicious of the CIA/Intelligence (Iraq?) when guys like John Brennan and James Clapper are running around the hallways of Washington.
Vince Tassone

Post Reply