So, I see Disney has just discovered a new upcharge experience... DVC members are being told of 25th anniversary after hours events, exclusive to members, but although pricing hasn't been announced, you just know they're not going to be free of charge, probably quite the opposite.
Just when you think they've thought of all the upcharges they can, along comes this.
And was it a slip-up that Iger mentioned a forthcoming Indiana Jones project in that Shanghaid interview? I didn't know that was public knowledge yet.
But I think they both looked fantastic in TFA, actually. Not in a catwalk pretty kind of way, but as having characteristic faces and appearances. Such a shame Hollywood only ever films seventeen year olds. Rembrandt and Van Gogh knew better, the fifty or sixty year old face may be less pretty, but its more interesting than the pixel perfect seventeen year old one.
To help steer this thread back toward Spirit's musings (the subject in the first place), I propose that your next thread have a 'This is Spinal Tap' reference. "This Spirit Thread Goes to Eleven"
I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content" I will not click on "show ignored content"
Ah, the peanut gallery, forever desperately afraid they may learn something new.
Wait...something....new? No, @lazyboy97o is merely repeating what Spirit has been arguing in his threads for two years now, just with fancier words and less agenda. Here is how you merely break even on a $1B movie, or to be specific, make only $125 on $1.2B Iron Man 3:
Spirit said:
According boxofficemojo, Iron Man 3 only cost $200 mill to make and I'm sure advertising was between $100-150 mill. So lets just say $350 mill. That's about a $850 million dollar profit. Unless they had split a lot of the earnings with Paramount?
Disney spent close to $500 million on the film, including marketing. Paramount Pictures gets nine percent of the gross. Distribution costs as well. Disney also had a revenue sharing deal with a Chinese company that allowed the film to get major play over there.
As of about July 1st, Disney's profits on the film were about $125 million.
Now, do you get why this big budget/tentpole strategy is a disaster?
One of the most pertinent questions about the current Holloywood business model, both in this thread and elsewhere, is whether the tent pole strategy is sustainable. Astonishingly, Disney manages to lose money on half its Marvel movies. Although exact numbers are unknown, obscured as they are by Hollywood accounting and the nature of tent poles. A tent pole is not a synonym for blockbuster, but the term for a movie as a high profile central element that holds up the rest of the ancillary incomes. Tent pole strategy:
So, for summer 2013, only four out of 18 blockbusters were profitable, and the studios collectively lost $750 million on them, a -17% return on their investment. Even Marvel, who we generally assume has been printing money, has only returned profits on four of their eight films, losing an average of $50 million per film leading up to The Avengers. Studios are spending more and more per ticket, while revenue on those tickets hasn’t kept pace.
Hello @WDW1974 , do you have any info on the fate of Star Tours at DL?
IMO it would be really sloppy to keep it in Tomorrowland when a SWL exists on the other side of the park. At the same time I don't think Disney would spend the money it would take to move the attraction. Especially if the Millenium Falcon attraction makes Star Tours redundant. However, if there ever was an E ticket that was feasible to move Id imagine it would be Star Tours.
Is it possible they actually just rebuild Star Tours in SWL and use the old simulators for a new ride in TL?
Great minds and all that. Once posts like this get to be 1500 pages I just start reading the last 2-4 to get myself caught up on whatever the topic has veered off into. Don't mean to steal your thunder!
So, I see Disney has just discovered a new upcharge experience... DVC members are being told of 25th anniversary after hours events, exclusive to members, but although pricing hasn't been announced, you just know they're not going to be free of charge, probably quite the opposite.
Just when you think they've thought of all the upcharges they can, along comes this.
And was it a slip-up that Iger mentioned a forthcoming Indiana Jones project in that Shanghaid interview? I didn't know that was public knowledge yet.
Well, Mark Hamill did get into a car accident once that fractured his nose and cheekbone, which is why he looks the way he looks.
Life leaves its traces on people. At twenty people look fresh out of the package. At sixty, you look at forty years of adult living. Carrie Fisher suffered from mental problems, from medicines with all sorts of complications, and from more or less related substance abuse. Hamill had a car accident, followed by a certain sustained aversion to the gym.
But I think they both looked fantastic in TFA, actually. Not in a catwalk pretty kind of way, but as having characteristic faces and appearances. Such a shame Hollywood only ever films seventeen year olds. Rembrandt and Van Gogh knew better, the fifty or sixty year old face may be less pretty, but it's more interesting than the pixel perfect seventeen year old one.
I think you are going in a totally different direction, I don't expect anyone to look the same in their mid-fifties as they did when they were seventeen.....I am 55, I know. As far as what Hollywood puts up on the screen? How many people are going to go see a movie with me playing Capt. America? or Carrie Fisher playing Katniss in Mockingjay? I just thought they could spruce her up a bit. How many woman on this very forum color their hair? Get a new do? A new outfit? Rembrandt? Van Gough? What was attractive then is very different then what is considered attractive now. They actually were drawing and painting attractive woman for that period. Not debating what is morally right or wrong......just reality. I too thought Fisher looked fine, they just didn't do her any favors either.
All this talk about Carrie Fisher's body/look and I'm all:
As an actor (albeit younger), I'm well aware of the work that is put into your look for each individual role. That said, there comes a time (read: age) where your body plateaus. You could work out as much as you'd like and a lot of bodies kind of... Stop toning up. As Louis CK quotes his doctor in one of his bits, "Yeah that starts to happen." "Can I do anything to fix it?" "No it's just sh***y now."
But doesn't Leia come off as the type of princess that - over the course of IV-VI - stops caring about what a princess SHOULD or SHOULDN'T look like? I mean, hell. She's even lacking the title of "princess" in the new movie for the new title of General. Perhaps her 30 or so years of being with Han has made her a little tougher around the edges.
Maybe losing her son to the Dark Side has made her rethink her formerly conventional way of thinking
It's exposition. What has happened to your character up to the point that we're introduced to them? That is a conversation between the Writer, Director, Producer, and the Actor in that role. Just because a character doesn't look the way you want or expect them to means that they just threw the character together with little-to-no effort. For all we know, all three of them worked their behinds off and that was the product that all of the above listed people were happiest with, and felt made the most sense given all of their characters' circumstances.
Maybe it's just me, but I was stoked to just see her on screen again and reprising that role. I couldn't care less how any of them have aged
All this talk about Carrie Fisher's body/look and I'm all:
As an actor (albeit younger), I'm well aware of the work that is put into your look for each individual role. That said, there comes a time (read: age) where your body plateaus. You could work out as much as you'd like and a lot of bodies kind of... Stop toning up. As Louis CK quotes his doctor in one of his bits, "Yeah that starts to happen." "Can I do anything to fix it?" "No it's just sh***y now."
But doesn't Leia come off as the type of princess that - over the course of IV-VI - stops caring about what a princess SHOULD or SHOULDN'T look like? I mean, hell. She's even lacking the title of "princess" in the new movie for the new title of General. Perhaps her 30 or so years of being with Han has made her a little tougher around the edges.
Maybe losing her son to the Dark Side has made her rethink her formerly conventional way of thinking
It's exposition. What has happened to your character up to the point that we're introduced to them? That is a conversation between the Writer, Director, Producer, and the Actor in that role. Just because a character doesn't look the way you want or expect them to means that they just threw the character together with little-to-no effort. For all we know, all three of them worked their behinds off and that was the product that all of the above listed people were happiest with, and felt made the most sense given all of their characters' circumstances.
Maybe it's just me, but I was stoked to just see her on screen again and reprising that role. I couldn't care less how any of them have aged
Funniest line of this article: "A completion date has yet to be announced for the “Star Wars” land, but industry experts predict that an opening date could be at least a year away."
Spirit, should I book my trip to Disneyland for the opening now, or should I wait to see if construction takes thirteen months?
Funniest line of this article: "A completion date has yet to be announced for the “Star Wars” land, but industry experts predict that an opening date could be at least a year away."
Spirit, should I book my trip to Disneyland for the opening now, or should I wait to see if construction takes thirteen months?
As to ROTJ - let's see - she infiltrated Jabba's Palace, faced being a captured slave with grace and dignity, strategically waiting for her moment, when she then strangled the SOB without remorse using the same chain he imprisoned her with.
One of the most pertinent questions about the current Holloywood business model, both in this thread and elsewhere, is whether the tent pole strategy is sustainable. Astonishingly, Disney manages to lose money on half its Marvel movies. Although exact numbers are unknown, obscured as they are by Hollywood accounting and the nature of tent poles. A tent pole is not a synonym for blockbuster, but the term for a movie as a high profile central element that holds up the rest of the ancillary incomes. Tent pole strategy:
So, for summer 2013, only four out of 18 blockbusters were profitable, and the studios collectively lost $750 million on them, a -17% return on their investment. Even Marvel, who we generally assume has been printing money, has only returned profits on four of their eight films, losing an average of $50 million per film leading up to The Avengers. Studios are spending more and more per ticket, while revenue on those tickets hasn’t kept pace.
Take Return of the Jedi for instance. The movie grossed half a billion dollars and David Prowse didn't get any % dough because it hasn't made money.
"I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we've got nothing to send you. Now here we're talking about one of the biggest releases of all time," said Prowse. "I don't want to look like I'm about it," he said, "but on the other hand, if there's a pot of gold somewhere that I ought to be having a share of, I would like to see it."
