Jump to content
CJohn

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker | 20 DEC 2019 | NO SPOILERS | Reviews Page 651 | Worst reviewed live action Star Wars movie Ever

AndyLL

Talking about the leaks, not matter how vague, can lead to a thread ban if not spoiler tagged.

Message added by AndyLL

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, George Parr said:

Um, no, it would be true worldwide as well. There is no other trilogy that was as big financially.

 

Now, that's obviously rather meaningless, because it is hard to compare it to past hits, like the original trilogy or LOTR, and not everything ran in trilogies either (e.g. Avengers 2, 3 and 4 would be bigger, but those movies aren't a trilogy), but the statement in itself would still very much be true worldwide.

You are right, in that restricted form it probably is. But it does take a way a lot of the meaning. And does that mean only the OT counts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why this wont blow up big like EG or 750+ as I think a lot of the casual OT trilogy fans checked out after TFA and were drawn in by the hype.

 

Now I am seeing around mid 600s for this anyways as I think JJ will make a fun film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, George Parr said:

Um, no, it would be true worldwide as well. There is no other trilogy that was as big financially.

There is a nuance between successful and big (General Motor was one of the biggest revenues maker and car sellers in the world just before making it's kind of bankruptcy), not easy to say if it was bigger than the OT or Lords of the Rings, even less easy more or less successful.

 

Considering how much the business exploded during LoTR run:

total-film-revenues-20111.png

 

The new Star Wars merchandising was quite something specially at the beginning

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StarWarsMemer said:

This video of Endgame that is similar to the new special look has 29M views. TRoS will have half of that, so $1.4B?

 

 

https://youtu.be/0jNvJU52LvU

Kinda hard to compare the two when one's been out for months and the other is a day old.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Speaking of China, I wonder if they’re even going to bother releasing TRoS over there. 

They almost certainly will. They bothered to release Aladdin there with literally zero marketing and it worked for them eventhough they didn't except it (it legged well and reached a decent gross).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StarWarsMemer said:

This video of Endgame that is similar to the new special look has 29M views. TRoS will have half of that, so $1.4B?

 

 

https://youtu.be/0jNvJU52LvU

Not comparable. That one was released at a totally different point in the marketing cycle.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Horror of Lucas Films said:

 

Please, join my new club.

Last time I checked, the #1 rule of starting a club is that you actually have to believe it will happen, or at least has a strong chance of happening.

 

Going by your posting history, I kinda doubt you have had a sudden and sincere conversion on the subject of current SW movies.

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Last time I checked, the #1 rule of starting a club is that you actually have to believe it will happen, or at least has a strong chance of happening.

 

Going by your posting history, I kinda doubt you have had a sudden and sincere conversion on the subject of current SW movies.

And reading the club description, it's an obvious troll attempt.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pepsa said:

You are right, in that restricted form it probably is. But it does take a way a lot of the meaning. And does that mean only the OT counts? 

Well, there are plenty of exceptionally successful trilogies, and that was really all this was about ;)

 

No, why would it?

What matters is that it's three movies that form a trilogy, in one way or another. Star Wars will have three of those, so each can easily count on its own. The tricky part comes with franchises that are somewhere in between. E.g. POTC once was a trilogy, then they made two more. I'd say you could still count the first three as one trilogy, because that storyline ended with part three, and the last one was specifically written like an ending. But there are obviously other cases as well, like Indiana Jones, which isn't a trilogy anymore, and which wasn't exactly telling a connected story either. It's rather arbitrary, but then again, that's often the case when it comes to the box office, just look at what counts as an "opening day" in this day and age ;)

 

All in all, there's still quite a lot of famous trilogies out there, even if some of them fall off rather harshly. There are the three SW-trilogies, LOTR, The Hobbit, Jurassic Park (JW will make up another one), Back to the Future, Beverly Hills Cop, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Raimi's Spider-Man, Iron Man, or slightly smaller ones like Matrix, The Godfather, The Mummy or Hangover.

 

Not to mention those that went beyond in some form, like POTC, Indiana Jones, Shrek or Men in Black, or split what normally would have been a trilogy into four movies, like Hunger Games or Twilight.

 

In general I would say you either need exactly three movies, or have three of your movies form one coherent storyline. That more or less discounts The Avengers, because neither are there three of those movies, nor do the ones that exist form a storyline that runs over three movies. Kind of like Indiana Jones. Maybe it just feels that way, but it seems like there were more trilogies in the past. Nowadays they go beyond three more often, or add a fourth one much later on. Back then you rarely went beyond three, and if you did, most people prefer to believe that you didn't (e.g. Jaws ;)  ).

Edited by George Parr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, George Parr said:

Well, there are plenty of exceptionally successful trilogies, and that was really all this was about ;)

 

No, why would it?

What matters is that it's three movies that form a trilogy, in one way or another. Star Wars will have three of those, so each can easily count on its own. The tricky part comes with franchises that are somewhere in between. E.g. POTC once was a trilogy, then they made two more. I'd say you could still count the first three as one trilogy, because that storyline ended with part three, and the last one was specifically written like an ending. But there are obviously other cases as well, like Indiana Jones, which isn't a trilogy anymore, and which wasn't exactly telling a connected story either. It's rather arbitrary, but then again, that's often the case when it comes to the box office, just look at what counts as an "opening day" in this day and age ;)

 

All in all, there's still quite a lot of famous trilogies out there, even if some of them fall off rather harshly. There are the three SW-trilogies, LOTR, The Hobbit, Jurassic Park (JW will make up another one), Back to the Future, Beverly Hills Cop, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Raimi's Spider-Man, Iron Man, or slightly smaller ones like Matrix, The Godfather, The Mummy or Hangover.

 

Not to mention those that went beyond in some form, like POTC, Indiana Jones, Shrek or Men in Black, or split what normally would have been a trilogy into four movies, like Hunger Games or Twilight.

 

In general I would say you either need exactly three movies, or have three of your movies form one coherent storyline. That more or less discounts The Avengers, because neither are there three of those movies, nor do the ones that exist form a storyline that runs over three movies. Kind of like Indiana Jones. Maybe it just feels that way, but it seems like there were more trilogies in the past. Nowadays they go beyond three more often, or add a fourth one much later on. Back then you rarely went beyond three, and if you did, most people prefer to believe that you didn't (e.g. Jaws ;)  ).

Well, wasn't the original claim that the ST will be "the most critically and commercially successful trilogy of all time"? It certainly will rank highly but I still don't see how it can beat the OT in either metric. Maybe if you use unadjusted grosses, but I think that devalues exactly how commercially massive the OT was at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, George Parr said:

Well, there are plenty of exceptionally successful trilogies, and that was really all this was about ;)

 

No, why would it?

What matters is that it's three movies that form a trilogy, in one way or another. Star Wars will have three of those, so each can easily count on its own. The tricky part comes with franchises that are somewhere in between. E.g. POTC once was a trilogy, then they made two more. I'd say you could still count the first three as one trilogy, because that storyline ended with part three, and the last one was specifically written like an ending. But there are obviously other cases as well, like Indiana Jones, which isn't a trilogy anymore, and which wasn't exactly telling a connected story either. It's rather arbitrary, but then again, that's often the case when it comes to the box office, just look at what counts as an "opening day" in this day and age ;)

 

All in all, there's still quite a lot of famous trilogies out there, even if some of them fall off rather harshly. There are the three SW-trilogies, LOTR, The Hobbit, Jurassic Park (JW will make up another one), Back to the Future, Beverly Hills Cop, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Raimi's Spider-Man, Iron Man, or slightly smaller ones like Matrix, The Godfather, The Mummy or Hangover.

 

Not to mention those that went beyond in some form, like POTC, Indiana Jones, Shrek or Men in Black, or split what normally would have been a trilogy into four movies, like Hunger Games or Twilight.

 

In general I would say you either need exactly three movies, or have three of your movies form one coherent storyline. That more or less discounts The Avengers, because neither are there three of those movies, nor do the ones that exist form a storyline that runs over three movies. Kind of like Indiana Jones. Maybe it just feels that way, but it seems like there were more trilogies in the past. Nowadays they go beyond three more often, or add a fourth one much later on. Back then you rarely went beyond three, and if you did, most people prefer to believe that you didn't (e.g. Jaws ;)  ).

Thats what I was thinking Avengers was origanly going to be a trioligy (Avengers, AOU and the last part splitted in 2 IW and EG first it was even called IW part one and IW part two. So yeah the line is pretty vague I would say. And I would say that they have a coherent story line even if you only have

the avengers movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:

They almost certainly will. They bothered to release Aladdin there with literally zero marketing and it worked for them eventhough they didn't except it (it legged well and reached a decent gross).

Only way I can see TROS not getting a CHina release is if China cuts the number of US Films released in CHina as a move in the trade wars, and Disney has to choose between TROS and another DInsey film which might have better box office possibilities getting a Chinese release.

And US studio execs are very worried that will happen;that the trade wars will hit the US Film Industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Only way I can see TROS not getting a CHina release is if China cuts the number of US Films released in CHina as a move in the trade wars, and Disney has to choose between TROS and another DInsey film which might have better box office possibilities getting a Chinese release.

And US studio execs are very worried that will happen;that the trade wars will hit the US Film Industry.

I have a hard time seeing this happen. First of all, American movies make more money for the Chinese distributors and the government than local films (which is also why they are less restrictive with American films in terms of censorship). They arent as dumb enough to take actions that will hurt their own country (unlike what Trump's doing with the tariffs). And what China is trying to do is attack Trump's base (ie. Farmers) and Hollywood definitely isn't Trump's base. 

 

 

Maybe films that China expects to not do well in China like TROS won't be allowed a Chinese release anymore though while movies that would do well like most superhero films and Mulan continue to release though.

Edited by lorddemaxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Menor said:

Well, wasn't the original claim that the ST will be "the most critically and commercially successful trilogy of all time"? It certainly will rank highly but I still don't see how it can beat the OT in either metric. Maybe if you use unadjusted grosses, but I think that devalues exactly how commercially massive the OT was at the time.

I don't think that devalues the OT's performance at all. There's a stat for what you're discussing, isn't there? Or rather, there could be... You just measure the distance between what Star Wars made that year and what the rest of that year's top 10 made.... Or find the average of all that year's movies, and compare the OT's performance to that.... That should give you a really solid idea of how far out ahead of the pack those movies were, and you don't have to use really bad math like "inflation calculators" to get there...

 

Also, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi weren't unanimously beloved by critics, either. They were both pretty well liked... but there's some wiggle room where the Sequel Trilogy could possibly wrap up its run with overall better reviews, and more of them, than the Original Trilogy had... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LawrenceBrolivier said:

Also, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi weren't unanimously beloved by critics, either. They were both pretty well liked... but there's some wiggle room where the Sequel Trilogy could possibly wrap up its run with overall better reviews, and more of them, than the Original Trilogy had... 

Considering how pretty much anyone with a blog is apparently considered good enough to be a certified Rotten Tomatoes critic, the ST having a lot more reviews doesn’t exactly mean much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Considering how pretty much anyone with a blog is apparently considered good enough to be a certified Rotten Tomatoes critic, the ST having a lot more reviews doesn’t exactly mean much. 

That's easy: Top Critics only... 

Also, remember that when the OT came out, print media was thriving and not the hollowed out mess it currently is today. Once you subtract all the sub-par writers and thinkers who make up 3/4ths of the Rotten Tomatoes roll-call, it's probably a much more even comparison between every major city having three or four paid film and cultural critics of worth and note vs the 100+ people given top critics status at Rotten Tomatoes...

yes, I know there are outliers in the top critics section that probably shouldn't be in there.... mediocre youtubers and such... but you get the point...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.