George Parr

That sounds rather doubtful to me. Maybe goodwill from one movie could elevate the next one, but beyond that the influence is negligible. What really elevated the movies later on, was the Dollar being much weaker, plus by the end the addition of 3D prices. Parts 5 to 7.2 had the prime exchange rates, similarly to Avatar or POTC 4 (notice how that movie increased worldwide even though admission numbers actually dropped significantly). Parts 3 and 4 already had really good exchange rates, while parts 1 and 2, on the other hand, saw the strongest Dollar of the last few decades.

1. A New Hope 2. The Empire strikes Back 3. Return of the Jedi 4. Knights of the Old Republic 5. Andor 6. Rogue One 7. Knights of the Old Republic 2 8. Revenge of the Sith 9. The Last Jedi 10. The Mandalorian 11. Dark Force Rising 12. Heir to the Empire 13. Knights of the Old Republic (comic) 14. TIE Fighter 15. The Last Command 16. Jedi Knight 2 17. The Force Awakens 18. Jedi Knight 19. Solo 20. The Phantom Menace 21. Attack of the Clones 22. I, Jedi 23. Jedi: Fallen Order 24. X-Wing 25. Galactic Battlegrounds 26. The Rise of Skywalker 27. Republic Commando 28. Pod Racer 29. Jedi Academy 30. Obi-Wan Kenobi 31. Battlefront 2 (2005) 32. Book of Boba Fett 33. Clone Wars (Tartakovsky) 34. LEGO Star Wars 35. X-Wing Alliance 36. Empire at War 37. The Clone Wars 38. Rebels 39. Battlefront 1 (2004) 40. The Force Unleashed Would probably look a bit different if I tried to do the list tomorrow again. Though the top 15 would probably keep the same 15, if not necessarily in that order.

Wouldn't 99m weekdays followed by a 47m 3rd weekend be rather odd? Rogue One made about 89m from 26-29, so that would be 10 million more for Avatar 2, but for the weekend you would have Rogue One ahead by 1m again, as it made 48m. Surely if Avatar was that far ahead over the weekdays, it should easily make 50m+ over the 3rd weekend.

I'm not sure where you got the idea from that Mangold claimed there weren't any pickups. His statements never included such a claim. What he said, is that the movie is all but finished now and in the process of getting a rating, and there is zero indication that this is wrong. Principal photography started in June 2021, even with the break due to Harrison Ford's injury it still finished in early 2022. Now its December 2022. Any pickups would have been done by now. You also have to remember that the release had been pushed back by a whole year even though Indiana Jones never took ages in post production, so the movie would obviously be done way before the release would happen. Apart from that, Indy IV had no filming past principal photography outside of one establishing shot done a bit later on. So yes, it does indeed happen.

Um, the old Indy movies very much look like they were shot on a soundstage. I have no idea how one could pretend otherwise. It's blindingly obvious if you look at them, just like the special effects stand out quite clearly, Even more so when you look at the original versions, and not the ones that have been cleaned up and/or digitally enhanced. Doesn't stop them from being great movies.

Right, because Steven Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski really don't know how to work with film. After all, Indy IV was made by them, and that movie supposedly loooked "fake". This idea that "new" filmmakers are somehow incapable of working with film is just complete bollocks. You are confusing you not liking a look with them not knowing what they are doing. It's the same nonsense as "I didn't like the script therefore the writer was lazy", that's not how any of this works. This isn't a bunch of 15 year old working with a digital camera for the first time, these people, even the younger ones among them, have worked on this matter for decades, they know fully well how film works and what the differences between film and digital are. "Young" in terms of Hollywood isn't someone straight out of college. Maybe what they came up with is not to your liking, or even in some cases to the liking of the majority of the people, but in no way, shape or from is that in any way connected to them knowing or not knowing what they are doing. People are perfectly capable of knowing exactly what they are doing and still delivering something you don't like. Your opinion on a matter has no bearing on how well those who made it understand filmmaking or technology.

You mean unlike those original three Indiana Jones movies which were mostly shot on a sound stage? Raiders had a bunch of days at the start shooting in La Rochelle, a bunch of days on Hawaii, and then much of the desert parts in Tunisia, everything else was on a sound stage. Temple of Doom had not quite two weeks in Sri Lanka, everything else was on a sound stage, by far the movie with the least on location shooting. Last Crusade started with three weeks in Spain, had one day in Venice and a few days in Colorado to shoot the opening. Everything else was on a sound stage Crystal Skull started with three weeks on location in New Mexcio, Connectictut and Hawaii, the rest was on a sound stage. All in all, Crystal Skull was very much in line with Last Crusade in terms of on location shooting, and easily ahead of Temple of Doom. Raiders might be a bit ahead due to having a shorter principal photography in general.

People are confusing "some people complaing about stuff" with there being worse consequences than before. The idea that this has somehow gotten worse is absurd. Islamic writers in western countries have been faced with fatwas calling for the death for decades now. Salman Rushdie had to live in hiding and almost died from an attack on him. Monty Python faced criticism from all over the place, to the point that some of their movies were even banned in some western countries, but sure, you can't tell jokes you could tell back then anymore... "Cancel culture" is mostly rubbish. A made up term by those who want to complain about stuff, mostly about society having changed in a way that the things they want to say aren't revered anymore. Are there people who will complain about anything? Yes. Are they somehow louder or more influential than in the past? Absolutely not. The internet can amplifiy a bunch of people whining about stuff, but that's basically it. Most of the supposedly cancelled people haven't been cancelled at all. Though they do love to take a big tour through all shows and news channels talking about how they are prevented from talking, which is rather ironic. For the most part, complaints about cancel culture are more rampant than actual cancel culture. Anyone who thinks that nowadays you can barely tell any darker joke while it was perfectly normal in the past hasn't paid any attention to the last century. Go and look back at the 50s, 60s, etc. you will be hard-pressed to find anything remotely edgy in any part of it. Heck, Elvis swinging his hips a bit got people up in arms. The whole period was uptied to the max, and that very much continued into the next few decades. Compared to that anything goes today. Just because different jokes cause different reactions today, doesn't mean that there are somehow more jokes you can't tell now. All it really means, is that some topics appear differently today than they did in the past. And if you look at how tame and uptight the past has been, there is zero reason to assume that we somehow have an era of unprecedented complaining, on the contrary, the opposite is the case. Funnily enough, those who complain the most about cancel culture tend to support political parties who stand the most for the repressed old view that didn't like jokes, had clearly defined gender roles (to put it nicely) and was about to call for a new crusade against anyone questioning christianity.

If you thought it would drop today or tomorrow, why would you have been surprised that it hadnt come out yet? After all, if it had come out, it would have dropped before you thought it would.

Stimmt schon, aber das gilt nur wenn zwei Teams punktgleich sind. Wenn es drei sind gilt der Vergleich zwischen den drei. Hätte Deutschland heute verloren und würde dann 2-0 gegen Costa Rica gewinnen, dann wären Japan, Deutschland und Costa Rica alle bei 3 Punkten. Im direkten Vergleich zwischen den drei hätten alle jeweils 3 Punkte, Japan hätte 2-2 Tore, Costa Rica 1-2 und Deutschland 2-1, und damit wäre Deutschland wieder vorne gewesen. So wie es jetzt ist, muss Deutschland gewinnen und Japan darf keinen Punkt holen. Dann ist Deutschland weiter. In allen anderen Fällen ist Deutschland raus. I guess I won't be able to catch Glass Onion in the last two days of its run. A bit of a shame. Oh well, I guess Netflix and a projector will have to do. At least that beats only watching it on a tv-screen

Nah, Japan lost to Costa Rica, so no matter how Germany plays today, any win by two goals over Costa Rica would be enough to advance if Japan should lose against Spain.

Who could have known that if you don't bother mentioning to anyone that your movie will be in theaters, that hardly anyone will watch? It's one thing for Netflix to "steal" what would likely be a minor hit from theaters by only giving it a short limited release before it hits streaming a month later. But to totally botch said release and throw away money they could make, is simply beyond me. It's not like marketing the theatrical release would hurt. It would also work as marketing for the streaming release. Instead you basically don't get any marketing at all in Germany, and to no one's surprise hardly anyone goes to see it in theaters. Heck, if I hadn't accidentaly seen the name of the movie as I was passing by a theater on my way to work, I wouldn't have known that the one week theatrical release also applied to Germany as well, and I'm someone who has been anticipating Glass Onion for quite some time now...

Tony Gilroy, and he should know, seeing how he is the showrunner. Gilroy and Dieog Luna both felt that the originally planned 5 seasons was too long and that they couldn't do it, so instead of five seasons with each covering a year up to Rogue One, season two will now have four three-episodes arcs each covering a year.

Saturday trend sees a further increase for smile 😄 Ticket to Paradise also with a sizeable increase from the last trend, while OPF Red drops by 25k. #1: Smile - 275k #2: One Piece Film - Red - 250k #3: DSdmT2 - 225k #4: Halloween Ends - 155k #5: Ticket to Paradise - 92.5k

I wonder if this is actually what we've seen in the trailer. Really good episode. No action, but it didn't really need any, as there was great tension throughout. Just the right stuff for this sort of show. Not to harp on Boab Fett and Kenobi, but the writing and acting in Andor is just on another level. Those two shows had great stuff sprinkled throughout, but here you have a constantly high level from basically everyone.

She wasn't boring at all, nor is it any "coincidence" that she didn't get her own show. And no by "Disney standards" she shouldn't have gotten any by now either. We've seen exactly two shows like that, one of a multiple decade old fan-favourite character, one about one of the most famous characters of the entire saga. Comparing that to a character who is just a few years old just lacks any sort of logic. We didn't get a show about Andor because Andor is oh so relevant. We got the show because it fits into the frame of telling a story about the developing rebellion. He just so happens t be a long-time rebel you can us as the lead. Jyn Erso, on the other hand, spend the last few years prior to Rogue One as someone who just got by on her own, completely disconnected from larger events. At the start of Andor, she is either at the end of her time with Saw, or has already been left behind by him. While you could certainly tell a story about someone who gets through life as a low-level criminal, we kind of got that in all the other shows already. Unlike with Andor, you can't connect her to a larger story, or you contradict her storyline of Rogue One.

What does that have to do with "Matrix 4 sympathizers"? Words have a meaning, you know, and you just made a blatantly false statement, so people asked for clarification. I haven't seen the movie, I wouldn't know whether it is any good or bad, but one thing I do know: voicing an opinion about liking / not liking a movie couldn't possibly be a lie unless said person made contradictory statements about it. What you are saying amounts to "I didn't like the movie, therefore your feelings for it couldn't possibly be good either, which means you must be lying about liking it or what you saw in it". And that makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sure you can find people out there who liked Gigli, most people didn't. In no way, shape or from could you take from that, that the people who liked it are lying about their feelings. A personal opinion is not linked to general consensus.

How does the trailer give off trashy vibes? It looks rather stunning for what is ultimately a rather small property, and the content / acting seems entirely proper for a fantasy-adventure. If anything, I would say it seems to play quite a bit above where it could be expected.

Yeah, that's completely impossible. Just ask Matthew McConaughey, who never got past running around with his shirt off either! Just because someone was seen more as a charming leadingman for action- or adventure-movies and not as a character-actor, doesn't mean he was considered a bad actor, nor does it mean that he couldn't possibly capture audiences in different ways later on.

That comparison makes no sense at all. Song of the South has never seen a home video release in the USA, and that's quite a few decades by now. On the opposite end, there would be nothing awkward about having Indiana Jones on streaming. There are zero similarities between these movis. There's also a major difference between "refusing to acknowledge the existance" and what Disney is actually doing: not releasing it again. There is nothing that forces a studio to constantly re-release all of their movies on all sorts of platforms.

Ah yes, expecting decent behaviour from someone is really too much... You know who acts like a child? Someone who treats others like a jerk. Also someone who thinks that any sort of repercussions for your own behaviour are akin to silencing someone. Or who thinks that others act like children because they don't like being insulted. Or who thinks he is the only "older" person and everyone else is just too young to know better, while knowing zero about the people he is trying to interact with. None of that is stuff that an adult should think, because it couldn't be more immature. Someone who has four kids and has been married for 30 years should know fully well that "actions have consequences" has existed for millenia. Pretending that it is something new is just absurd. No, people aren't suddenly getting "silenced", nor is expecting decent behaviour something new either. Thousands upon thousands of years of human history, in which people got put in their place for acting out of order, but yes, clearly that whole concept is something entirely new The whole post reads like a tantrum from a petulant child mixed with the rant of an old person who was never taught to self-reflect. Everyone is wrong, how dare anyone expect people to abide by rules, I get to insult others but no one say a word back at me! All finished by whiningly stomping your foot on the ground and taking your ball to go home. A grown up treats others with respect. And yes, sometimes things might get a bit heated, but then go and cool off. And if you step over the line, you own up to it. You sure as heck don't pretend that you own the world and get to say whatever you want wherever you want. Nor do you whine and storm off because someone actually dares to want people to abide by commonly accepted rules that have been around for ages. I mean, do you seriously think that people getting banned from a message board was something new? These kind of boards are private places, the people who run it have every right to set basic rules, as is true in the real world as well. I've been on the internet for 25+ years or so. Not once was there a time where message boards didn't have mods, or didn't ban people who thought the rules where beneath them. It certainly wasn't the case on the old Box Office Mojo boards either. While things did get out of hand, and moderation was all over the place, there was still quite a few bans when the mods desired to go for it.

Quite interesting comments by Stuart Beattie about his draft for the originally planned Obi-Wan movie: https://thedirect.com/article/obi-wan-kenobi-reva-killed-script-exclusive I think the bits he's talking about sound better than the similar parts we've actually got. Though there's obviously a difference between what has been written and how it would be executed.

If a critic likes something, he likes something. He cannot rate it negatively just because you don't like it. Nor does the RT-rating have anything to do with whether something is mediocre or not. You can can have 90% of the people like something more than they dislike it, without any of them coming close to loving it. It would still result in a 90% at RT. "Rewarding" the show has nothing to do with that. Beyond that, I agree that the show could have been quite a bit better

Somehow the show never really took off for me... it's not that it was bad, it was mostly solid throughout, with an uptick towards the end, but it didn't really have a single episode I would consider to be great. It just chugged along at a level of "pretty good", outside of a few moments here and there. In the end, that leaves the show as fairly enjoyable to me, but in terms of what I had hoped the show could offer it is a bit disappointing. If I had to rank all the episodes from the three live-action shows, I don't think a single one from this show would make the top 10. Maybe one could eek in at the bottom.

That has nothing to do with "the Disney brand", as Disney isn't telling Lucasfilm what it can and cannot do, nor would it be something new in Star Wars, so what are you talking about?