General star wars talk/discussion/complaining

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

2 Billion on the first film...to half of that by the third...yeah...I'm going to strongly disagree with you on this one.

Bad movies make less money than good movies. That doesn't indicate a thing about hardcore fans, the kind who insist that the Obi-Wan and Boba Fett TV series were good, actually. (They were not.) In fact, a lot of the haters of the prequels are the folks most invested in mediocre shows like Ashoka, showing that they didn't actually go anywhere at all, but are still putting money in Scrooge McDuck's vault.

Disney with all it's cash should have figured this out far before this, but apparently they are so hard headed they can't even figure their way out of their own office building politics.

Like I said, it would have been easy to do this with the Alien franchise and they had a well-publicized attempt by a prominent director who wanted to do a direct sequel to Aliens that invalidated everything that came after, which they chose not to take.

If they aren't doing it for Alien, they are not doing it for Star Wars, which would be mainstream news and alarm stockholders in the way that rebooting the Alien universe would not. Romulus, in fact, directly connects to Prometheus, showing that Disney doubles down on all of their franchise, no matter what fanboys may say.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm a POC.

I think Rian Johnson is a Racist...things I can't continue to say here.

He did Finn EXTREMELY dirty in TLJ.

They could have redeemed it in RoSW, and hinted at it, but didn't have the guts.

That said, I don't think that's the main reason a lot of people didn't like TLJ, but it's probably one of the small and minor contributions.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this if there is a way for you do do it without getting yourself into trouble with the forum rules or attracting ire (I've heard this as a criticism of the third movie but not the second so am curious what aspects of the of it you feel have this issue). Feel free not to answer though if you are worried it is too tricky to take on here

 

[overgeeked]

Bad movies make less money than good movies.

Profits are never an indication of quality only popularity. Those are wildly different things.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Profits are never an indication of quality only popularity. Those are wildly different things.

Truly terrible movies almost universally make less money than comparable movies that are good. (So that we're not trying to compare an art house movie to a summer blockbuster.)

A good franchise blockbuster making much more money than a horrible one is largely about quality, especially if it follows some that were divisive so that lots of potential audience members wait to hear what other people think about it, as happened with RoS, where the word of mouth was "wait for this to be on home video, if you ever bother to watch it at all."

We see the same phenomenon happening with the MCU, where the core of people who will go to the theaters all the time shrinks over time, but there are still spikes in box office when a good one comes along.

 

[overgeeked]

Truly terrible movies almost universally make less money than comparable movies that are good. (So that we're not trying to compare an art house movie to a summer blockbuster.)

A good franchise blockbuster making much more money than a horrible one is largely about quality, especially if it follows some that were divisive so that lots of potential audience members wait to hear what other people think about it, as happened with RoS, where the word of mouth was "wait for this to be on home video, if you ever bother to watch it at all."

We see the same phenomenon happening with the MCU, where the core of people who will go to the theaters all the time shrinks over time, but there are still spikes in box office when a good one comes along.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Profits are not an indicator of quality. Never have been. Never will be. They only indicate popularity. Period. I know from the last 1000 times we’ve done this dance that I’ll never convince you. And that’s fine. But it really is exhausting seeing this same ridiculous fallacy pop up over and over again. It’s the same kind of wrong-headed nonsense that leads people to think someone’s bank account determines their worth as a person.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Profits are not an indicator of quality. Never have been. Never will be. They only indicate popularity. Period. I know from the last 1000 times we’ve done this dance that I’ll never convince you. And that’s fine. But it really is exhausting seeing this same ridiculous fallacy pop up over and over again. It’s the same kind of wrong-headed nonsense that leads people to think someone’s bank account determines their worth as a person.

I think you're conflating me with someone else.

 

[overgeeked]

I think you're conflating me with someone else.

If so, I apologize.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Truly terrible movies almost universally make less money than comparable movies that are good. (So that we're not trying to compare an art house movie to a summer blockbuster.)

A good franchise blockbuster making much more money than a horrible one is largely about quality, especially if it follows some that were divisive so that lots of potential audience members wait to hear what other people think about it, as happened with RoS, where the word of mouth was "wait for this to be on home video, if you ever bother to watch it at all."

We see the same phenomenon happening with the MCU, where the core of people who will go to the theaters all the time shrinks over time, but there are still spikes in box office when a good one comes along.

While I do think how much a movie makes isn't always an indication of quality, movies often bomb for a reason. Also we could spend all day talking about what makes a movie good or great and there will always be a high degree of subjectivity to that discussion. The Thing bombed at the box office and with critics but is now widely regarded as a great film. And some films bomb but find an audience over time.

 

[Zardnaar]

While I do think how much a movie makes isn't always an indication of quality, movies often bomb for a reason. Also we could spend all day talking about what makes a movie good or great and there will always be a high degree of subjectivity to that discussion. The Thing bombed at the box office and with critics but is now widely regarded as a great film. And some films bomb but find an audience over time.

Quality isn't tied to box office performance.

If you want a sequel though it is. To many reasons why good movies bomb.

Deliberately missing off your own fans/outrage marketing is high risk though.

Solo flopped was kinda decent. Backlash vs TLJ and no one really wanted it I suspect would be main reasons.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Also we could spend all day talking about what makes a movie good or great and there will always be a high degree of subjectivity to that discussion.

Are there a lot of people arguing that Rise of Skywalker is a good or great movie?