Star Wars Ep. 9 Thread

[Animaniac93-98]

from a really big fan: I loved it. I’ve seen it twice already and will at least once more.

Everyone I know who has seen it has been very enthusiastic about it, and ridicule the random internet opinions that carry no weight with us.

Birds of a feather, as they say.

To dismiss all criticism of this movie as "random internet opinion" would be naive at best.

 

[erasure fan1]

That's absurd, and, frankly, delusional.

I guess my response would be this. Last jedi did almost 1.4 billion. So 1.5 should be expected at a minimum. I think if endgame did 1.9 billion, Disney would have considered it a disappointment. Not a failure, but a disappointment. You expect the finale of an all time beloved franchise to out do the movie before it. I don't think anyone thought it would do as well as force awakens. But if 9 does not at least beat 8, that has to be a bit disappointing.

 

[mikejs78]

I guess my response would be this. Last jedi did almost 1.4 billion. So 1.5 should be expected at a minimum. I think if endgame did 1.9 billion, Disney would have considered it a disappointment. Not a failure, but a disappointment. You expect the finale of an all time beloved franchise to out do the movie before it. I don't think anyone thought it would do as well as force awakens. But if 9 does not to at least beat 8, that has to be a bit disappointing.

I mean, why? First off, Last Jedi did not almost do 1.4 billion. It did a little bit over 1.3 (1.321 to be exact, and in no system of rounding that I know does that equate to "almost 1.4 billion".).

Let's have some historical context using adjusted for inflation values. In the OT, each movie did successively worse (when adjusted for inflation). In the PT, Episode 3 barely did better than Episode 2 (which is what I think will happen with Rise).

Star Wars has had 10 films before Rise of Skywalker. Only 4 did above 1.5b adjusted for inflation. One was the original, two were after pent up demand (Phantom Menace and Force Awakens) and one is highly considered the best Star Wars film of all time (Empire). If Rise of Skywalker comes in in the 1.3b -1.4b range, it will beat Return of the Jedi, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Solo, and possibly The Last Jedi. Again, this is using numbers adjusted for inflation.

So I find it hard to understand how anyone can say it is a disappointment by any stretch of the imagination. Solo was a disappointment. This is not.

 

[erasure fan1]

I mean, why? First off, Last Jedi did not almost do 1.4 billion. It did a little bit over 1.3 (1.321 to be exact, and in no system of rounding that I know does that equate to "almost 1.4 billion".).

Let's have some historical context using adjusted for inflation values. In the OT, each movie did successively worse (when adjusted for inflation). In the PT, Episode 3 barely did better than Episode 2 (which is what I think will happen with Rise).

Star Wars has had 10 films before Rise of Skywalker. Only 4 did above 1.5b adjusted for inflation. One was the original, two were after pent up demand (Phantom Menace and Force Awakens) and one is highly considered the best Star Wars film of all time (Empire). If Rise of Skywalker comes in in the 1.3b -1.4b range, it will beat Return of the Jedi, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One, Solo, and possibly The Last Jedi. Again, this is using numbers adjusted for inflation.

So I find it hard to understand how anyone can say it is a disappointment by any stretch of the imagination. Solo was a disappointment. This is not.

I was going off of memory with the last jedi numbers so sorry I was off. Of course I don't think that effects what I said. If ep9 comes in at 1.2 billion then, do you honestly think Disney will be happy? I just don't see it. Rouge one did just over 1 billion so I have to think that Disney had way loftier targets than that for the finale.

 

[mikejs78]

I was going off of memory with the last jedi numbers so sorry I was off. Of course I don't think that effects what I said. If ep9 comes in at 1.2 billion then, do you honestly think Disney will be happy? I just don't see it. Rouge one did just over 1 billion so I have to think that Disney had way loftier targets than that for the finale.

Yes, I do think they would be happy with a 1.2b take. A 1.2b take would make the movie the third highest grossing film of 2019, 3rd of Disney's 7 films to gross over $1b this year. That's a hugely successful film. Would they be happier with a higher gross?.. Of course. But they will still be happy with anything over $1B imo.

Regardless, that wasn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing that anything less than 1.5b is a disappointment. And I think a cume that beats out Last Jedi (say, $1.35b-1.4b) will be considered a huge win. In that case, it would be the second highest grossing Star wars film of the Disney era, and 5th highest of all 11 Star Wars films. And I think that's where it will likely end up.

 

[LSLS]

So we are to the point that the goal is the to be the 3rd largest movie of the year for the final star wars movie. And people want me to consider that a win?

That said, if it doesnt best the last jedi, it will be a failure to disney (maybe even if it does slightly beat it). It will not lose money (I dont thing, though I'm not completely sure based on some estimates I've seen), but if there is one thing that should be abundantly clear by this point, it's that making less money than you could/should have will never be anything other than a failure to the leadership.

 

[mikejs78]

So we are to the point that the goal is the to be the 3rd largest movie of the year for the final star wars movie. And people want me to consider that a win?

That said, if it doesnt best the last jedi, it will be a failure to disney (maybe even if it does slightly beat it). It will not lose money (I dont thing, though I'm not completely sure based on some estimates I've seen), but if there is one thing that should be abundantly clear by this point, it's that making less money than you could/should have will never be anything other than a failure to the leadership.

You're projecting. You have no idea what Disney's expectations are. Again, if it eeks out TLJ (which is looking increasingly plausible) it will be the 5th highest grossing Star Wars movie of all time, adjusted for inflation.

 

[mikejs78]

Saw the movie yesterday. Thoroughly enjoyed it, though for different reasons than I enjoyed the Last Jedi. A few parts of the story were a little clunky, but overall it was a fun, satisfying Star Wars movie that actually made sense of some things that were introduced in past SW movies, and it was steeped in Star Wars Lore... Parts of it also tied into some of the Star Wars novels that came out around the time of TFA (specifically the Aftermath trilogy and the Thrawn novels), leading me to think there may have been more of an overarching plan to this than some have speculated. I'll probably see it again in theaters sometime in January. A-.

 

[erasure fan1]

You're projecting. You have no idea what Disney's expectations are. Again, if it eeks out TLJ (which is looking increasingly plausible) it will be the 5th highest grossing Star Wars movie of all time, adjusted for inflation.

To be fair, we are all projecting, even you. No one knows what Disney expects from this movie. You could be right, maybe eeking out last jedi was their goal all along. Maybe they had delusions of grandure and expected endgame returns. Personally I think when this journey started they didn't expect each saga film to go backwards. I remember reading articles that Disney was disappointed in age of ultron because it didn't beat the avengers. But it still did 1.4b and that's not bad.

 

[mikejs78]

To be fair, we are all projecting, even you. No one knows what Disney expects from this movie. You could be right, maybe eeking out last jedi was their goal all along. Maybe they had delusions of grandure and expected endgame returns. Personally I think when this journey started they didn't expect each saga film to go backwards. I remember reading articles that Disney was disappointed in age of ultron because it didn't beat the avengers. But it still did 1.4b and that's not bad.

Well I don't think RoS is going to go backwards, I think it's going to beat out TLJ... Current forecasts are for well north of a $600M domestic take.

I also think some of those articles were more projections from the press, which makes everything a horse race, rather than Disney themselves. If we are going by that, the word in the press has been that the hope by Disney is for RoS to match TLJ.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Here's where I have a problem comparing Star Wars box office performance with Avengers (and, for that matter, Harry Potter.)

Avengers and Potter were completed in a much shorter time frame with consistent casting and a consistent audience.

You don't think if 7,8,9 were completed with Han, Leia, and Luke as the main characters (in their prime, preferably 20 years ago) that box office numbers would have blown away expectations? Of course 9 would have delivered better results than what we are seeing now - no matter who wrote or directed it, frankly.

The reason Star Wars (an original franchise, btw) exists as a cultural phenomenon (which Avengers are not, IMO, they're just popular movies) is because of 4,5,6. Had they started with Ep 1. at the time Ep 1. came out, it would have been nowhere near as big a deal.

There was a crazy time lapse between 6 and 1. Fans had to start over with a completely new cast. Then they had to start over again with a completely new cast in 7. You will never be as invested in Rey in Ep 9 as you are in Hermione in the last Potter movie. There's no way. You grew up with Hermione over all the films in the natural course of the life of the actress, and in some cases, as audience members of the same age grew up alongside her.

The big three in the Star Wars universe had effectively bit parts in the last three movies. (Yes, Luke was pivotal, but had precious little screen time over 3 films.) That will always be Lucas' fault for waiting so long to do the prequels, and then doing the prequels before the sequels, knowing his cast was aging out (and I'm guessing some of that is on Harrison Ford for not wanting to be involved. OK, Harrison in the 90's: you want to do another Indy? Sign a contract for SW ep 7 right after.)

So the reality is you have 3 distinctly separate trilogies, tied together by a storyline but not by a cast. I am maybe just now ready for Rey, Poe, and Finn to carry their own movie, but they're over, too. Down with the Skywalker ship (and from what I understand some of them didn't want to do more, either.)

The Palpatine thread retroactively tied all nine together. That was clever. I enjoyed the sequels much more than the prequels. I had no big issues with TLJ, and I very much enjoyed Ep 9. But the reality is "Star Wars" is 4,5,6 for me. And I think Lucas was getting a little blowback after RoTJ (there was chatter about the Ewoks at the time almost like there was about Jar Jar Binks.) So maybe he thought he should quit while he was ahead, and didn't see a way forward to a successful 7 right then (although we all know he wanted to do 9 installments going way back to the early 80's at least.)

It was bungled. Not by Disney.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Here's where I have a problem comparing Star Wars box office performance with Avengers (and, for that matter, Harry Potter.)

Avengers and Potter were completed in a much shorter time frame with consistent casting and a consistent audience.

You don't think if 7,8,9 were completed with Han, Leia, and Luke as the main characters (in their prime, preferably 20 years ago) that box office numbers would have blown away expectations? Of course 9 would have delivered better results than what we are seeing now - no matter who wrote or directed it, frankly.

The reason Star Wars (an original franchise, btw) exists as a cultural phenomenon (which Avengers are not, IMO, they're just popular movies) is because of 4,5,6. Had they started with Ep 1. at the time Ep 1. came out, it would have been nowhere near as big a deal.

There was a crazy time lapse between 6 and 1. Fans had to start over with a completely new cast. Then they had to start over again with a completely new cast in 7. You will never be as invested in Rey in Ep 9 as you are in Hermione in the last Potter movie. There's no way. You grew up with Hermione over all the films in the natural course of the life of the actress, and in some cases, as audience members of the same age grew up alongside her.

The big three in the Star Wars universe had effectively bit parts in the last three movies. (Yes, Luke was pivotal, but had precious little screen time over 3 films.) That will always be Lucas' fault for waiting so long to do the prequels, and then doing the prequels before the sequels, knowing his cast was aging out (and I'm guessing some of that is on Harrison Ford for not wanting to be involved. OK, Harrison in the 90's: you want to do another Indy? Sign a contract for SW ep 7 right after.)

So the reality is you have 3 distinctly separate trilogies, tied together by a storyline but not by a cast. I am maybe just now ready for Rey, Poe, and Finn to carry their own movie, but they're over, too. Down with the Skywalker ship (and from what I understand some of them didn't want to do more, either.)

The Palpatine thread retroactively tied all nine together. That was clever. I enjoyed the sequels much more than the prequels. I had no big issues with TLJ, and I very much enjoyed Ep 9. But the reality is "Star Wars" is 4,5,6 for me. And I think Lucas was getting a little blowback after RoTJ (there was chatter about the Ewoks at the time almost like there was about Jar Jar Binks.) So maybe he thought he should quit while he was ahead, and didn't see a way forward to a successful 7 right then (although we all know he wanted to do 9 installments going way back to the early 80's at least.)

It was bungled. Not by Disney.

Definitely should have done 7-8-9 while the cast was younger. 7-8-9 was never going to be fully
Accepted or enjoyed by major fans without them.

 

[sedati]

It was bungled.

I think of it more as a grand experiment in storytelling.

 

[mikejs78]

You don't think if 7,8,9 were completed with Han, Leia, and Luke as the main characters (in their prime, preferably 20 years ago) that box office numbers would have blown away expectations?

I actually disagree with this to a point. The Star wars fandom has grown tremendously in the past 40 years and is a lot bigger now than it was in 1985, 1995, and 2005. Each successive trilogy has added fans from new generations of kids. I grew up with 4, ,5 and 6, and that's Star Wars to me (even though I love all of it), but millennials I work with grew up with the prequels, and to them, those movies are Star Wars. To my son, the new sequel trilogy is Star Wars, even though he likes all the movies. It's easy to look at things through the lense of ones own perspective, but it's not the perspective shared by everyone.

If they had released a sequel trilogy 20 years ago instead of the prequels, it would have done extremely well. But would it have done better than the prequels today (adjusted for inflation)? I'm not so sure, just by virtue of the fact that there weren't as many fans 20 years ago as there are now (just by virtue of the demographics of star wars fans, more fans were being added by virtue of being children vs fans that were dying).

Phantom Menace, although it did not have the original cast, was still a pent up demand movie. No one knew that the prequels wouldn't be as good at the time. And it did 700M (in inflation adjusted dollars) less than The Force Awakens.

I'm not saying that Lucas shouldn't have done that, or that the trilogy you proposed wouldn't have been successful or more successful than the prequels, but I don't think it would have been automatic. If Lucas did things to the characters that fans didn't like, do you not think the backlash would have been as strong as TLJ? I just don't see it as a given that a sequel trilogy 20 years ago would have done better than the sequel trilogy that was done this decade.

 

[LSLS]

You're projecting. You have no idea what Disney's expectations are. Again, if it eeks out TLJ (which is looking increasingly plausible) it will be the 5th highest grossing Star Wars movie of all time, adjusted for inflation.

Sure to an extent. You want to convince me that when disney began a new star wars trilogy the goal was that the finale couldnt quite make the same money as a redo of the lion king, have at it. Further, if you want to convince me the goal of sequels is to constantly make less money than the previous films (especially with an announced finale, not just sequel after sequel), you are going to have a hard sell.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

$72 million second weekend. Almost a 60% drop. Box Office Mojo was predicting a $97 million weekend gross.

Day-to-day comparison still has it trailing Last Jedi.

 

[mikejs78]

$72 million second weekend. Almost a 60% drop. Box Office Mojo was predicting a $97 million weekend gross.

Day-to-day comparison still has it trailing Last Jedi.

BoxOfficeMojo was definately on the high end of the predictions I was seeing. Most projectons were in the 70-80M range.

It's still pacing below TLJ but barely (it's closed the gap to $7.2M after starting out with a $42M deficit after opening weekend), and its second weekend was higher than TLJs second weekend (though not by much). It will surpass it this week. It also had a better than expected international draw this weekend, at $98M.

 

[Joesixtoe]

BoxOfficeMojo was definately on the high end of the predictions I was seeing. Most projectons were in the 70-80M range.

It's still pacing below TLJ but barely (it's closed the gap to $7.2M after starting out with a $42M deficit after opening weekend), and its second weekend was higher than TLJs second weekend (though not by much). It will surpass it this week. It also had a better than expected international draw this weekend, at $98M.

It's a better (star wars) movie than TLJ, so I would hope it makes more money.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

 

[Mike S]

View attachment 437246

Spoiler