If it "only" does 400-500 million domestic that would put it in the top 10 domestic all-time. That's not "bombing" by any measurement.Farmer1906 said:In relative terms. If Solo gets Batman v Superman type reviews and isn't good. And I mean actually not good, not just people don't love it. Then it only does 400-500 M domestic (less than TFA after its 2nd weekend) I would say most people would call that bombing.Belton Ag said:
This is why I literally lol'd the other day at the post that suggesting that Lucasfilm was bracing for Solo to bomb. There's no way a Star Wars movie is going to bomb, especially not at this time.
Star Wars Discussion Thread
6,738,402 Views |
45776 Replies |
Last: 7 hrs ago by YouBet
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Box office seems to be picking back up. $27M for both Monday and Tuesday, and $21M Wednesday. Way up from last week.
Only because kids are off from school and there aren't other good movies out. What the hell else are you going to do if you're stuck in Dallas in December?
Fine, call it 400 M. That is 43% of TFA, ~50% of TLJ, and 75% of RO. And 29th all-time domestic.Belton Ag said:If it "only" does 400-500 million domestic that would put it in the top 10 domestic all-time. That's not "bombing" by any measurement.Farmer1906 said:In relative terms. If Solo gets Batman v Superman type reviews and isn't good. And I mean actually not good, not just people don't love it. Then it only does 400-500 M domestic (less than TFA after its 2nd weekend) I would say most people would call that bombing.Belton Ag said:
This is why I literally lol'd the other day at the post that suggesting that Lucasfilm was bracing for Solo to bomb. There's no way a Star Wars movie is going to bomb, especially not at this time.
wesag said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Box office seems to be picking back up. $27M for both Monday and Tuesday, and $21M Wednesday. Way up from last week.
Only because kids are off from school and there aren't other good movies out. What the hell else are you going to do if you're stuck in Dallas in December?
Huh? Jumanji and Coco are also out. Also how is that any different than any other Holiday release in history? The timing of when Christmas Day fell likely hurt TLJ and I think most expected it to pick back up after Christmas during the remainer of the holidays.
Actually it is. If you're expecting 50 percent more revenue and the market is there, you should make that or more. **** like that gets you fired.
Tough to compare to TFA since Christmas Day was TFA's 2nd Friday, but the fact the bump held on Tuesday has to be encouraging for Disney. Will be interesting to see how the rest of the week pans out.
I mean, obviously. What's your point, though? All December releases will get this bump.
It's still indicative of strong legs / continued dominance at the BO.
It's still indicative of strong legs / continued dominance at the BO.
Fine, why not call it $100 million since we're playing the what if game?Farmer1906 said:Fine, call it 400 M. That is 43% of TFA, ~50% of TLJ, and 75% of RO. And 29th all-time domestic.Belton Ag said:If it "only" does 400-500 million domestic that would put it in the top 10 domestic all-time. That's not "bombing" by any measurement.Farmer1906 said:In relative terms. If Solo gets Batman v Superman type reviews and isn't good. And I mean actually not good, not just people don't love it. Then it only does 400-500 M domestic (less than TFA after its 2nd weekend) I would say most people would call that bombing.Belton Ag said:
This is why I literally lol'd the other day at the post that suggesting that Lucasfilm was bracing for Solo to bomb. There's no way a Star Wars movie is going to bomb, especially not at this time.
I'll concede the point that if nobody goes to the movie then it'll bomb.
But there is no evidence or data in existence right now to suggest it'll bomb.
I originally said 400-500. You picked the high end to make your point. If it does poorly compared to the others and expectations, people will consider it bombing.It'ss not rocket science.Belton Ag said:Fine, why not call it $100 million since we're playing the what if game?Farmer1906 said:Fine, call it 400 M. That is 43% of TFA, ~50% of TLJ, and 75% of RO. And 29th all-time domestic.Belton Ag said:If it "only" does 400-500 million domestic that would put it in the top 10 domestic all-time. That's not "bombing" by any measurement.Farmer1906 said:In relative terms. If Solo gets Batman v Superman type reviews and isn't good. And I mean actually not good, not just people don't love it. Then it only does 400-500 M domestic (less than TFA after its 2nd weekend) I would say most people would call that bombing.Belton Ag said:
This is why I literally lol'd the other day at the post that suggesting that Lucasfilm was bracing for Solo to bomb. There's no way a Star Wars movie is going to bomb, especially not at this time.
I'll concede the point that if nobody goes to the movie then it'll bomb.
But there is no evidence or data in existence right now to suggest it'll bomb.
I guess the point of contention is the definition of bomb. If you define bomb as not performing to expectations you could be right. I consider a "bomb" to be an unprofitable movie, or at least a movie that grossly misses the mark in terms of earnings, which I highly doubt happens with the Solo movie. Solo is probably going to make Lucasfilm and Disney tons of cash.Farmer1906 said:I originally said 400-500. You picked the high end to make your point. If it does poorly compared to the others and expectations, people will consider it bombing.It'ss not rocket science.Belton Ag said:Fine, why not call it $100 million since we're playing the what if game?Farmer1906 said:Fine, call it 400 M. That is 43% of TFA, ~50% of TLJ, and 75% of RO. And 29th all-time domestic.Belton Ag said:If it "only" does 400-500 million domestic that would put it in the top 10 domestic all-time. That's not "bombing" by any measurement.Farmer1906 said:In relative terms. If Solo gets Batman v Superman type reviews and isn't good. And I mean actually not good, not just people don't love it. Then it only does 400-500 M domestic (less than TFA after its 2nd weekend) I would say most people would call that bombing.Belton Ag said:
This is why I literally lol'd the other day at the post that suggesting that Lucasfilm was bracing for Solo to bomb. There's no way a Star Wars movie is going to bomb, especially not at this time.
I'll concede the point that if nobody goes to the movie then it'll bomb.
But there is no evidence or data in existence right now to suggest it'll bomb.
To be fair, I think Han Solo should be held to the standard of Rogue One and not the rest of the saga. (A more apt comparison would be a movie like Fantastic Beasts, the Harry Potter spinoff.)
Even 80% of Rogue One would be considered a smashing success, IMO. That's $425M and good for a spot in the Top 20 all-time list. For a spinoff movie.
Justice League did $223M, for crying out loud. JUSTICE LEAGUE.
Now that there is a bomb.
Even 80% of Rogue One would be considered a smashing success, IMO. That's $425M and good for a spot in the Top 20 all-time list. For a spinoff movie.
Justice League did $223M, for crying out loud. JUSTICE LEAGUE.
Now that there is a bomb.
I feel like SW (spin-off or not) carries enough hype that it gets 150-200 off the bat for the first weekend whether the movie is great or terrible. Star Wars has 40 years of fans. it may have changed hands, but it is the same universe and generations of fans will watch because its star wars. The only thing I can remotely think of the comes close is disney princess movies, but even then that is more niche.Brian Earl Spilner said:
To be fair, I think Han Solo should be held to the standard of Rogue One and not the rest of the saga. (A more apt comparison would be a movie like Fantastic Beasts, the Harry Potter spinoff.)
Even 80% of Rogue One would be considered a smashing success, IMO. That's $425M and good for a spot in the Top 20 all-time list. For a spinoff movie.
Justice League did $223M, for crying out loud. JUSTICE LEAGUE.
Now that there is a bomb.
I'm of the opinion that Solo will have to be a REALLY good movie to match what Rogue One did at the box office. There's a few things at play:
- General apathy towards the concept of this film (I don't think many casual Star Wars fans, the bulk of movie goers, are all that intrigued by a Han Solo movie)
- Star Wars fatigue (the novelty of new SW movies is wearing off)
- Competition (has to compete with other summer blockbusters, like The Avengers)
- General apathy towards the concept of this film (I don't think many casual Star Wars fans, the bulk of movie goers, are all that intrigued by a Han Solo movie)
- Star Wars fatigue (the novelty of new SW movies is wearing off)
- Competition (has to compete with other summer blockbusters, like The Avengers)
Solo is a really tough movie concept to pull off. Harrison ford is pretty hard to replace, and Han Solo is the type of lovable character that could well breed contempt with familiarity.
A good writer/director could make a great movie, but honestly, other than Rogue One (which was written by a fan staffer) none of the new movies have had any good writing or directing. Absolutely horrendous, in fact. (not really debatable, even though I enjoyed TFA)
A good writer/director could make a great movie, but honestly, other than Rogue One (which was written by a fan staffer) none of the new movies have had any good writing or directing. Absolutely horrendous, in fact. (not really debatable, even though I enjoyed TFA)
Point 2 and 3, I agree with. But not the first one. Han is one of the all-time favorite characters out there.Saul Goodman said:
I'm of the opinion that Solo will have to be a REALLY good movie to match what Rogue One did at the box office. There's a few things at play:
- General apathy towards the concept of this film (I don't think many casual Star Wars fans, the bulk of movie goers, are all that intrigued by a Han Solo movie)
- Star Wars fatigue (the novelty of new SW movies is wearing off)
- Competition (has to compete with other summer blockbusters, like The Avengers)
I agree with the last two points, but even though I've seen a number of people say that a Solo movie wouldn't have much appeal I don't understand. Huge name recognition, a chance to break out of the main storyline and do something totally new, a cool character that should lend itself to a crazy fun plot... the only downside i can see is that Harrison Ford is hard to replace.
tamusc said:wesag said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Box office seems to be picking back up. $27M for both Monday and Tuesday, and $21M Wednesday. Way up from last week.
Only because kids are off from school and there aren't other good movies out. What the hell else are you going to do if you're stuck in Dallas in December?
Huh? Jumanji and Coco are also out. Also how is that any different than any other Holiday release in history? The timing of when Christmas Day fell likely hurt TLJ and I think most expected it to pick back up after Christmas during the remainer of the holidays.
This was a dig at Dallas. I wasn't that serious.
By the way, what made Last Jedi PG 13? I didn't see anything more than PG.
wesag said:tamusc said:wesag said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Box office seems to be picking back up. $27M for both Monday and Tuesday, and $21M Wednesday. Way up from last week.
Only because kids are off from school and there aren't other good movies out. What the hell else are you going to do if you're stuck in Dallas in December?
Huh? Jumanji and Coco are also out. Also how is that any different than any other Holiday release in history? The timing of when Christmas Day fell likely hurt TLJ and I think most expected it to pick back up after Christmas during the remainer of the holidays.
This was a dig at Dallas. I wasn't that serious.
By the way, what made Last Jedi PG 13? I didn't see anything more than PG.
Anything with violence is PG-13 nowadays. TFA was PG-13 and think all the Marvel movies have been too, yet Empire was PG.
My guess would be the throne room battle. They did cut a guy in half.wesag said:
By the way, what made Last Jedi PG 13? I didn't see anything more than PG.
Plus the sea cow dinosaur nipple play.
Yeah, it's kind of funny to think about what flew in PG -13 or even PG movies back in the 80's. I remember my mom having to cover my eyes to shield me from Sharon Stone's teets once at what we thought was a kids movie.
Gremlins was advertised as a kids movie that I'm sure scared the crap out of some 5 year olds. No way that's PG today.
And the ultimate "how the **** did that get a PG rating" movie of all time: Barbarella.
Got ya
PG-13 wasn't even around until the mid-80s because of people complaining Gremlins and Temple of Doom were too dark compared to other PG movies
There was a certain scene that did the trick for me as a young man watching on broadcast TV.Bruce Almighty said:
And the ultimate "how the **** did that get a PG rating" movie of all time: Barbarella.
This. I was 10 when Star Wars released. Basically any Star Wars universe movie get's $40 or so of my money at release (3 shows) and a DVD sale.
Would you have preferred the R rating for Empire then, seeing as how PG was the only viable option in 1980? The PG-13 rating did not come about until after Mola Ram ripped out a guy's heart and sent that dude into the fiery pit of misery in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984.Quote:
yet Empire was PG
Dilly dilly!Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Would you have preferred the R rating for Empire then, seeing as how PG was the only viable option in 1980? The PG-13 rating did not come about until after Mola Ram ripped out a guy's heart and sent that dude into the fiery pit of misery in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom in 1984.Quote:
yet Empire was PG
ChiliBeans said:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to think about what flew in PG -13 or even PG movies back in the 80's. I remember my mom having to cover my eyes to shield me from Sharon Stone's teets once at what we thought was a kids movie.
National Lampoon's Vacation
Ag Since 83 said:
PG-13 wasn't even around until the mid-80s because of people complaining Gremlins and Temple of Doom were too dark compared to other PG movies
They had a pretty good point.
cbr said:Quote:
How can you rank tlj behind prequels?
Easy for me: prequels were a good story with bad cgi, pretty bad acting, and some really stupid kiddie stuff.
Tlj is an absolutely ****ty story with fundamentally ****ty characters and no plot whatsoever other than 'all your icons and new characters except Rey are actually dumbass snotty moronic losers, and Rey isn't really a great character because she can do anything and never even had to work at it.' And it had even worse attempts at humor, still had bad cgi even 10 years later, and still had plenty of bad acting.
I agree except I liked the quality of the CGI fine..
was Rated Rwesag said:ChiliBeans said:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to think about what flew in PG -13 or even PG movies back in the 80's. I remember my mom having to cover my eyes to shield me from Sharon Stone's teets once at what we thought was a kids movie.
National Lampoon's Vacation
So I can still remember that summer well, 1984, I was 10 and a half and saw both Gremlins and Temple of Doom in the theatre. For right or wrong, both movies freaked people out. And then in August, Red Dawn got the first official PG13 rating.wesag said:Ag Since 83 said:
PG-13 wasn't even around until the mid-80s because of people complaining Gremlins and Temple of Doom were too dark compared to other PG movies
They had a pretty good point.
Man, being a kid in the 80's was f'ing great.
Well I thought it was PG but either way that was the best topless ever.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
8h ago
6.0k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
10h ago
1.1k
37:53
7h ago
790
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
14h ago
2.9k