ROGUE ONE WEEKEND THREAD | Actuals R1 155.09m, Moana 12.7m, OCP 8.58m, CB 7.1m, FB 5.07m

[Mulder]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Some of you are such hypocrites. If you hated the film you'd be screaming "cash grab" from the mountain top. I said cash grab way before I ever had an opinion on the film, because the two things have nothing to do with each other. 

Will you pull up arguments that aren't just buzzwords, personal opinions, and Ad Hominens or no?

[Rman823]

I honestly feel like if the movie was just a cash grab then certain aspects would have been played differently. Plus the movie isn't like TFA where anyone can come in without some knowledge of the previous movies. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Rman823

[Daxtreme]

3 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Disney exists to entertain people and do everything in their power to make it the best they possibly can.  They have been doing this for decades and their founder was passionate about entertaining people.  The money is a nice result of their efforts, but it is secondary to trying to put out a quality product.  

 

Exactly.

 

Actual quote from Walt Disney himself:

 

[elcaballero]

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Oh my god, how are people actually arguing with me about this being a cash grab? Give me a freaking break. Say you like the movie, that's your opinion. Don't say it didn't exist exclusively to be a cash grab. That's being unreasonable. 

The problem is that if we use your definition of cash grab, 99% of movies are cash grabs. I don't think you can hold that against RO.

Edited December 17, 2016 by elcaballero

[Chewy]

22 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

A sequel trilogy had been in gestation for decades. There was far more behind deciding to make it than just the money.

 

you don't really believe this, do you? tell me you don't

[EmpireCity]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Some of you are such hypocrites. If you hated the film you'd be screaming "cash grab" from the mountain top. I said cash grab way before I ever had an opinion on the film, because the two things have nothing to do with each other. 

 

Bullshit.  I absolutely HATE Suicide Squad but I recognize that isn't even a cash grab.  The studio doesn't know what the fuck they are doing, but even that isn't a cash grab.  

 

Ice Age 5 is a cash grab.  Alvin and the Chipmunk's the Squeakuel is a cash grab.  

[FlashMaster659]

Just now, Daxtreme said:

 

Exactly.

 

Actual quote from Walt Disney himself:

 

 

[Jonwo]

2 hours ago, yjs said:

about how much successful you're seeing? $250M or more closer to $300M?

 

Closer to $300m but it wouldn't surprise if it just misses it. OS I'm thinking $300-350m since it'll do well in some markets but not others 

[EmpireCity]

Releasing a DVD set for the 5th time in 7 years and doing nothing but changing the covers is a cash grab.  

Edited December 17, 2016 by EmpireCity

[Porthos]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Wrong. The movie could have been made at so many points in history before it was. It was literally decades in the making until it was felt it could be done right. Nothing about that makes it exclusively a cash grab. Developing a subplot we knew everything about 40 years ago to capitalize on people's current Star Wars fever is the cashiest cash grab in the history of cash grabs. 

 

13 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

This I will agree with. Still doesn't change my opinion on the film existing as a cash grab because the people working on it aren't the ones that got to decide it would exist. 

 

But... But under that definition the Sequel Trilogy wouldn't exist either.

 

---

 

Whether you like it or not, the concept of the standalones were under preliminary development BEFORE Disney took over.  The seeds of the Han Solo film and whatever comes next were directly planted by George Lucas (even if they end up being pretty different at the end).

 

The standalones exist because George Lucas wanted them to exist.  He continued to push the idea of the standalones strongly to Kathleen Kennedy as the transition was taking place.

 

Now is that a cash grab on his part or not? Is it a cash grab on the part of Kathleen Keenedy?  Or is it just those nebulous suits at Disney who lept at the idea of annual SW.

 

Takes two to tango, after all.

[Dementeleus]

8 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Wrong. The movie could have been made at so many points in history before it was. It was literally decades in the making until it was felt it could be done right. Nothing about that makes it exclusively a cash grab. Developing a subplot we knew everything about 40 years ago to capitalize on people's current Star Wars fever is the cashiest cash grab in the history of cash grabs. 

 

You don't have to justify your dislike of R1. Just say you hated it! (You have, in one of your other well-written posts). But trying to use these arguments is really dubious -- especially when you try to argue that TFA wasn't a cash grab but R1 was. And hey, I'm with you for part of that discussion -- I loved TFA too. But if you want to use the cash grab argument, it's about the most blatant example as you can find. 

[Chewy]

Fam every single big budget blockbuster exists purely to make money. There are no exceptions. Why is there such a long argument about this

[Porthos]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Some of you are such hypocrites. If you hated the film you'd be screaming "cash grab" from the mountain top. I said cash grab way before I ever had an opinion on the film, because the two things have nothing to do with each other. 

 

I'm glad you said 'some', because I would certainly would not.

[MovieMan89]

3 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Will you pull up arguments that aren't just buzzwords, personal opinions, and Ad Hominens or no?

Yes I do. And guess what? If I hate E8 way more than R1 I will still argue it didn't get greenlight exclusively as a cash grab. The sequel trilogy should have happened in the 80's if they were cash grabs only. The ideas already floating around and Lucas knew he could've made very quick and very big bucks going ahead with it then. 

[Dark 33Legend of the Sith]

So as someone said before, we all know all movies are cash grabs. People don't make movies to lose money.

 

But I think of what most people consider a "cash grab" is throwing together a story-usually a sequel, filming it with limited care and thought, and releasing it quickly to reap quick profits. Often times the customer loses on these types of projects.

 

IMO, to say Rogue One is a cash grab in the vein I described above, is an utter joke. You don't have to like the movie, you don't have to like the director. But it is obvious there was great effort, care, and risk taking involved in this process. 

 

If if its a quick cash grab, why make a gritty war movie? Disney could have quickly thrown together a Yoda movie in his young 200 year old days without any thought and made a billion dollars. But they went a different direction.

 

Im saying how you should feel about a movie. But a cash grab in the traditional definition it certainly isn't.

[Mulder]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Yes I do. And guess what? If I hate E8 way more than R1 I will still argue it didn't get greenlight exclusively as a cash grab. The sequel trilogy should have happened in the 80's if they were cash grabs only. The ideas already floating around and Lucas knew he could've made very quick and very big bucks going ahead with it then. 

Lucas didn't think anyone wanted more SW until he saw how good the EU was doing. 

[Rman823]

1 minute ago, EmpireCity said:

Releasing a DVD set for the 5th time in 7 years and doing nothing but changing the covers is a cash grab.  

Or making a shit ton of Direct to DVD sequels like The Land Before Time. 

[aabattery]

 

[Lordmandeep]

Breaking news

 

Studios make movies to make money

 

Those capitalist bastards!

 

 

[cannastop]

8 minutes ago, EmpireCity said:

Disney exists to entertain people and do everything in their power to make it the best they possibly can.  They have been doing this for decades and their founder was passionate about entertaining people.  The money is a nice result of their efforts, but it is secondary to trying to put out a quality product.  

Wow, you're telling me that making money is secondary to a division of a publicly traded corporation? I'm sure shareholders would love to hear that.