Barnack

That not what the poster is saying, is saying the fact that they come up with that (if that is the case, the movie played early maybe they were simply asked about it ?) could be a sign they didn't like the tracking numbers and were trying to generate awareness/interest.

That one is funny, Fast 6 and Days of Future past did bunker not so long ago. And it didn't work very well since because it is a bad date ? Audience score on RT Fast 6: 86% Days of future past: 91% Tomorrowland: 49% Alice Throught the looking glass: 49% X-Men apocalypse: 66% Baywatch: 55% Pirates 5: 61% Solo: 60% (For what is worth) Not sure the movie goers habbit changed during that weekend more than the appeal of the movies offered during it.

Not sure how scientific that reasoning is, Black panther fanbase and potential audience were not really either member of the alt-right, sympatisan of some of the views or influencable by them too. The old white male Star Wars fandom is possibly a different story. For example one could not use but it didn't affect NBA viewership has a scientific base to say something cannot have affected college football: I would more point out that Solo do seem to be the most alt-right compatible aligned output of the series so far (or at least from is caricature that I make of it), cis-white male lead, no attack on capitalism much or other trigger like that. Awaken was the most diverse of the bunch arguably and the most successful, there is much stronger force in play than the poisoning of the well by Internet youtuber I would imagine, those maybe gain root among young people and so on, but that core old giant fanbase from the OT, I would not imagine.

Not the first time a read this, is it true, I just remember some irrelevant claim about Solo first days of pre-sales beating black panther first days pre-sales, never that it was selling better in general.

Yeah at least $400m is not much of a commitment as if they were in the know, could just be a reasonable guess. $400m that would not even make Solo Ron Howard most expensive movie of is career. Angels & Demons in 2009 did cost $374.538m to make and release worldwide after rebate, that $437.4m 2018 dollar and people had gross point on that one real budget raised by 62.25m with the bonus. Angels & Demons production + Bonus + world release was $510m 2018 dollar, that put some perspective into saying Disney was crazy or sure to loose money or should not have spent a rumored $470m to $500m on a Star Wars movie, has if it was a special or insane amount.

Agreed to pay him couple of millions to develop one, not sure it is really greenlight.

The game 7 was this Sunday but there was a big game 6 saturday also I think.

It will recoup in 2019 when the merchandise (I am thinking t-shirt and coffee cup) and song about it will start to be sold.

Clive Owen involvement is usually a safe sign for that.

They certainly can, my general point is if male lead movie have access to a giant franchise bank and not woman, in this currently very franchise oriented world, it would put them quite at the disadvantage. There was giant one 50 shades, hunger games, etc... I am not saying you cannot start new franchise without using franchise that had a male protagonist in the past. But that closing the door to a FuryRoad would be bad and would put them quite at the disadvantage (but that is not what you are saying, because FuryRoad felt like an organic process, the resources shifting from gasoline to woman able to bread genetically ok people it became harder to do it with Max staying a male protagonist). Has long has one has the same attitude when we have a Star wars 11 and Jurassic park 5... that is just lazy and wish today people would start their franchise and not just some special case when a race/gender switch occur, I do not think there is nothing wrong with that.

And also at the same time not someone considered 100% a white woman by some old strange american standard to not create an issue with people having issue with a white woman getting with a black man, was a genius move.

I am not sure what people liked is a good metric of sexism of racism issue, racist will like the best black nba player on their favorite team. How people react, how much they are bothered, how big of a deal it become when someone do something they dislike is a woman versus men or person of color is were it will show itself. Now one must take into account the Star Wars fanatism, they are still going on about Jar Jar I guess and they went after a kid actor in phantom menace (and he was white and cute), people rapidly thinking something must be going on to have such a strong reaction could be easily overrating it.

Gone with the wind for example, does not just have a woman has the sole lead and an extremely strong character that actively push feminist put also the movie itself is violently feminist, biggest movie of all time at the box office, the favorite movie of Americans still today. No I do not think that you are automatically called a bigot if you critics anything, many of the biggest podcast critics didn't like Ghostbuster 2016 without having been called anything (say filmspotting or filmcast podcast all of the people on those 2 gave them a negative review, never been called anything by anyone), I do not think I was ever called anything when a criticized movies made or starring women myself either.... I think the way the critics is made (before or after having seen the movie being a big factor for example) and writing, choice of word and so on matter here.

That a bit unfair too and miss a bit of the picture. Rebooting a series is so common that it is a very minor part of why those movie get backlash, there is stand to make about stop making star wars 10 marvel 20, Alien 7, predator reboot, Creed 2, etc... movies and created new stuff for sure. When Rocky is re imagined / restarted with someone else it is ok because he is a men but would be bad if it is a woman ? When Ocean is rebooted it was ok when they rebooted the franchise with Clooney/Pitt with a male crew but not with Blanchett/Bullock with a female crew ? That distinction is becoming really strange. But being ok with men base products to redo and make sequels from the giant library of title from the past they have but female one should be limited to new stuff (or the more limited library of female starring franchise) would put them at a big disadvantage in today world were it is so hard to spend that giant money without any IP to reassure investor. It would be ideal obviously if they come up with new stuff more often, but there is a high fear reality.

Also blockbuster became real close to being comedies like Thor 3/Deadpool 1-2/Guardian of the Galaxy/lot of the animation output. "pure action" movies also does not reach really high number at the box office even the giant one and incredibly good one with franchise awareness like MadMax FuryRoad, you almost need to mix 2 or 3 genre together nowaday.

Just 2.5 really, Awaken was in december 2015 almost 2016, we are still in first half of 2018. that a Star wars every 7.5 month or so.

Hum where the ultra low youtube trailer views rank in that list too ?

That is much cheaper than what deadline advanced (above $470m), 400 would be cheap versus all the other report out there, like a $230m net budget with a $170m release.

Not sure how something without fans can have a strong nostalgia at the same time like this, sound really counter intutive.

Yes exactly it is certainly not for artistic reason they put a Chinese superstar to play a tertiary Shaolin Monk and I am not sure I remember what the other Chinese movie star was playing, but how was it not an obvious attempt to appeal to the China market ? Why do you add was it well done or not in my statement ? And yes Tokenism often work well abroad look, it boosted Magnificent 7 in South Korea for example, there is a long list of small role by big local star helping in the market.

They didn't expect it to get rotten reviews and not achieve to make a good trailer out of it when they started this, but they knew about the weak intl prospect by the time of release with the effort they gave to it and the very disparate release trying to take advantage of the world local holiday. Nothing indicate getting caught by surprise.

To who that this information could possibly matter did it do that ? Everyone saw it I think, Rogue One was an obvious attempt to change that, it is not like Disney didn't knew about this and didn't try to do something about it.

It was not even tracked for most movies I think, but for a global blockbuster like Cleopatra: http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=25&start=1963&finish=1963&order=domestic&keyword=&links=&popups= According to this, was bigger oversea than domestic, Lawrence of Arabia was also really big so were obviously the James Bond, press until very recently didn't care much about oversea, Jurassic Park becoming the biggest movie worldwide was not big back in the days. Not sure how accurate that figure above is, even on wikipedia there is no mention of the oversea performance. Just look how Deadpool 2 bigger opening weekend than the first one was received by the press.

1) The fact that it is a giant budget is less obvious 2) Critical reception is often taken into account in the perception of failure, 71% vs 40% on RT 3) For Americans oversea performance has yet to be fully integrated in the movie box office performances mindset.

Those bluescreen background were often not filled by CGI but by photographed miniature set.