Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Ep 8). SPOILERS. Plot points revealed and discussed.

[LukeS7]

Evidence? Did someone post actual evidence of the production costs and how much money the movie needs to make to be profitable? Random people on a message board throwing out numbers is not evidence.

None the less, I acknowledged that I may have jumped the gun in saying the film turned a profit immediately. That doesn't change the fact that the movie took in $450 million worldwide in it's first weekend. If you think this movie isn't a huge money maker, I don't know what to tell you.

I'd also speculate that the production costs on this movie are exaggerated. Remember that they're essentially paying themselves to do the expensive effects work, as ILM is owned by Disney. On paper, they probably cite market rates for those effects being completed.

Okay, let me break this down:

Force Awakens had a budget of close to $250 million.
Say Last Jedi was 80% of that (realistically it could be higher), so $200 million
Now factor in the advertising for the film, which is a separate budget and usually about half the production cost (though for major films can be at least $150 million, source: http://variety.com/2016/film/features/movie-marketing-advertising-tv-campaigns-1201724468/)

So, conservatively, that puts the total cost at $300 million (production budget of $200 million x 1.5 to include advertising)

Now, it's grossed $536 million worldwide, however, Disney's agreement with theaters for this film has been widely reported as 65%, higher than usual (source: http://www.businessinsider.com/disn...w-star-wars-the-last-jedi-in-theaters-2017-11)

So, Disney's takeaway at that 65% rate is $348.4 million

Meaning, they have profited at most $48.4 million so far (which while it sounds like a lot, isn't for a major blockbuster).

To compare, the same formula for Force Awakens puts total cost at $375 million. At this point, domestic gross was at $363 million plus the opening weekend for foreign countries (foreign daily totals aren't available from what I can find) which is another $280 million, giving you $643 million as the gross, plus maybe factor in an additional ~$30 million to make up for the days without foreign totals, gives you ~$675 million, times the takeaway rate (which for a more direct comparison, we'll go with the 65% for Last Jedi) and you get $438.75 million. So their profit would be $63.75 million, even at the higher production cost.

Now, if we use more likely numbers for Last Jedi, putting it at the same cost as Force Awakens and the advertising cost at what that article states is common for blockbuster films, that puts the more realistic numbers for Last Jedi at around $400 million. having made ~$348.4 million so far, that puts Disney at a loss of ~$52.2 million.

I'd like to also point out that random people on message boards stating that the budget is inflated because they "speculate" that Disney is quoting market rates is also not evidence.

 

[flynnibus]

Same would go for the Death Star. The death Star was a battle station, but it didn't cripple the Empire when it was destroyed. It's a big blow, but one a military with significant resources was able to recover from quickly.

The problem with this kind of rationale is it actually undermines the significance of the item they are trying to build up in the story itself. If losing this one item is no big deal... then why is the item something we should be worrying about?

The story telling really requires that these items be abnormal... so significant in impact and "cost" so that both pro and anti sides have to stress about it.

If something is insignificant to lose - you can't really make a great case for the big struggle and significance to the galaxy, etc.

I mean... imagine if in epIV the rebels blow up the Death Star and 20mins later another Death Star rolls up and blows up yavin iv . Kind of changes the whole emotional struggle around the object/objective.

So while we may say "technically... they might have..". - from a story writing perspective these bases/etc MUST be of major importance/significance to their ability to do what they do...

 

[bclane]

That's a fair point, however the parallels to the Death Star and that having been the Empire's main HQ I suppose it what created the assumption for me and others.

I would just like to point out that the Death Star was destroyed in Star Wars and the Empire came back with a plethora of all new crazy awesome weapons in Empire Strikes Back that did not make an appareance in the previous movie. I remember first seeing the Imperial Walker’s in Hoth and about loosing my geek mind. In fact most of the cool tech on display in ESB was not in SW. The Death Star was a single base and their ultimate weapon at the time, but that is all it was. The Emporer was not stationed there. Every new Star Wars movie has displayed new technology, new ship designs, etc. It would be hard for me to fault TLJ for doing something that every other Star Wars movie has done in the past. The Empire/First order even has specific trooper uniforms that are location specific. It’s a big operation.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

This coming from the user that starts off with "well if you ignore costs.." when talking about profitability?? Sorry, you aren't going to win the "solid ground" arguments from your cloud...

And all those ads and tie ins you've been seeing... they aren't free. Marketing budgets are redonkulous. And even tho ILM is in house.... the business doesn't work for free - their schedule costs money regardless because that's time they aren't working on something else. Each business still has a PnL to maintain and accounting rules still apply

Truth is... comparing to historical references when the market has changed so much has limited value. These films make monster numbers but is offset by the monster spending

I said "regardless of production costs", I did not say or suggest "ignoring" production costs.

Meaning, even though we don't know the actual production costs of the movie, we can reasonably see it is going to be a successf, based on historical trends and a bit of speculation. Any suggestion that this movie is going to be a disappointment profit-wise is really unrealistic.

 

[erasure fan1]

But I understand that it is off putting for many. And we'll likely never agree. But I'd rather have a TPM or a TLJ over a Rogue One or Revenge of the Sith any day. Even if next time I'm on your side and you're on mine and i find myself hating it. Because I'd rather see them trying something ambitious and fail for my tastes, then just send us a paint by numbers blockbuster.

I agree, I want something new as well. The strange thing about this movie is not what they tried to do but how those things were executed. Leia using the force wasn't a bad thing, but the way it was done was absolutely terrible. You own the best special effect house in the WORLD and that scene is one of the hokiest things I have scene in a long time. People were looking around in the theater with that look of, wow that was cheesy. And you can tell that moment didnt hit because most all the other big moments were met with cheers or clapping. I just wonder how it made it past the pre-screens without someone saying, maybe we should rework this. And this film had a number of those same type of moments for me. I still need to see it a 2nd time but as of my first viewing I liked it a lot.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Meaning, they have profited at most $48.4 million so far (which while it sounds like a lot, isn't for a major blockbuster).

$48.4 million profit on a super expensive movie, after ONE weekend? That's huge. That's almost unheard of. That would be a stunningly successful result. Spinning that as mediocrity is ABSURD.

I'd like to also point out that random people on message boards stating that the budget is inflated because they "speculate" that Disney is quoting market rates is also not evidence.

Thanks Captain Obvious. That would be why I noted that comment as being speculation and NOT evidence.

 

[bclane]

The problem with this kind of rationale is it actually undermines the significance of the item they are trying to build up in the story itself. If losing this one item is no big deal... then why is the item something we should be worrying about?

The story telling really requires that these items be abnormal... so significant in impact and "cost" so that both pro and anti sides have to stress about it.

If something is insignificant to lose - you can't really make a great case for the big struggle and significance to the galaxy, etc.

I mean... imagine if in epIV the rebels blow up the Death Star and 20mins later another Death Star rolls up and blows up yavin iv . Kind of changes the whole emotional struggle around the object/objective.

So while we may say "technically... they might have..". - from a story writing perspective these bases/etc MUST be of major importance/significance to their ability to do what they do...

The Death Star was a big deal because of what it could do, the time and resources it took to build and the fact that it was unique...and of course because it was about to blow away the Rebel Alliance with a single shot. The Empire was quite vast though so destroying that single base, as significant a victory as it was, did not win the war as we found out in ESB.

 

[flynnibus]

I said "regardless of production costs", I did say or suggest "ignoring" production costs.

Uh... that's what regardless means - to ignore .. "without concern" or without paying attention to. That's what it means to ignore...

Meaning, even though we don't know the actual production costs of the movie, we can reasonably see it is going to be a successf, based on historical trends and a bit of speculation. Any suggestion that this movie is going to be a disappointment profit-wise is really unrealistic.

Using your own thinking... you can't say that either because you don't really know what their expectations are.

It's a stupid argument anyway you cut it. The movie isn't going to be a loss... and the "profit" from such a property is across tons of businesses and markets... and even hard to isolate just to this one installment in the franchise.

It's really just about expectations of the film's gross... that's the only thing that is easy to track generically.. and that shouldn't be applied universally to mean different things

 

[bclane]

I agree, I want something new as well. The strange thing about this movie is not what they tried to do but how those things were executed. Leia using the force wasn't a bad thing, but the way it was done was absolutely terrible. You own the best special effect house in the WORLD and that scene is one of the hokiest things I have scene in a long time. People were looking around in the theater with that look of, wow that was cheesy. And you can tell that moment didnt hit because most all the other big moments were met with cheers or clapping. I just wonder how it made it past the pre-screens without someone saying, maybe we should rework this. And this film had a number of those same type of moments for me. I still need to see it a 2nd time but as of my first viewing I liked it a lot.

I think I would have picked a different way to introduce Leia’s Force powers as well, but I heard or read somewhere that that was actually Carrie Fisher’s idea. I could be wrong about that though but i’m 99% sure I read that somewhere. Did anyone else read that?

 

[flynnibus]

The Death Star was a big deal because of what it could do, the time and resources it took to build and the fact that it was unique...and of course because it was about to blow away the Rebel Alliance with a single shot. The Empire was quite vast though so destroying that single base, as significant a victory as it was, did not win the war as we found out in ESB.

You missed the point... if it wasn't an huge commitment by the empire... losing it wouldn't be a big deal.... and the audience wouldn't care... because the empire wouldn't care as much either.

The comment wasn't to call it the hq... the point was in storytelling you need the empire to have a lot on the line as well... or there is no tension.

 

[Gomer]

The problem with this kind of rationale is it actually undermines the significance of the item they are trying to build up in the story itself. If losing this one item is no big deal... then why is the item something we should be worrying about?

The story telling really requires that these items be abnormal... so significant in impact and "cost" so that both pro and anti sides have to stress about it.

If something is insignificant to lose - you can't really make a great case for the big struggle and significance to the galaxy, etc.

I mean... imagine if in epIV the rebels blow up the Death Star and 20mins later another Death Star rolls up and blows up yavin iv . Kind of changes the whole emotional struggle around the object/objective.

So while we may say "technically... they might have..". - from a story writing perspective these bases/etc MUST be of major importance/significance to their ability to do what they do...

There is a difference in being able to recover from something and it being insignificant. Starkiller base was a significant threat to every other planet in the galaxy clearly. What with its physics defying ability to blow up any planet it wants. The resistance needed to blow it up to survive, but that doesn't necesarrily mean it needs to be the end all be all of the First Order.

Blowing up a death star or a Starkiller can be a significant victory for the heroes without being a crippling blow to the bad guy, just by the nature of the David vs Goliath story. TFA, and ANH for that matter,was a story about a desperate win to stay alive, not a war ending victory.

 

[erasure fan1]

I think I would have picked a different way to introduce Leia’s Force powers as well, but I heard or read somewhere that that was actually Carrie Fisher’s idea. I could be wrong about that though but i’m 99% sure I read that somewhere. Did anyone else read that?

That I had not scene. The concept was fine it was just poorly executed. I do know Carrie helped with a lot of the script according to Rian.

 

[Gomer]

I agree, I want something new as well. The strange thing about this movie is not what they tried to do but how those things were executed. Leia using the force wasn't a bad thing, but the way it was done was absolutely terrible. You own the best special effect house in the WORLD and that scene is one of the hokiest things I have scene in a long time. People were looking around in the theater with that look of, wow that was cheesy. And you can tell that moment didnt hit because most all the other big moments were met with cheers or clapping. I just wonder how it made it past the pre-screens without someone saying, maybe we should rework this. And this film had a number of those same type of moments for me. I still need to see it a 2nd time but as of my first viewing I liked it a lot.

I won't argue that one. Super-Leia is one of my nitpicks that hasn't faded with subsequent viewings. Takes me out of the movie each time. But in the end, its just a nitpick. I can look past that one scene. Pretty much every star wars movie has a couple of those scenes it in that I wish I could do away with.

 

[fractal]

So, I just realized why this film picking up immediately at the end of Force Awakens bothers me so much. I knew that it was odd before to me since none of them had done that before, but there was another piece missing and I just realized what it was: All the new tech/advancements that they throw in feel like "Hey, they have this new thing now!" rather than there having been any time for those things to feel like they've been developed/created between films.

- Dreadnaughts
- "Mini Death Star Tech" (Battering Ram Cannon, real creative name btw )
- Hyperspace tracking

These all feel like they came out of nowhere because they essentially did. They weren't in the last installment and because of the timeline between films, they don't feel like they should "realistically" exist within the universe.

As one critic said "making it up as they go along".

As far as the "miniaturized" Death Star Tech - wasn't the Death Star tech all about sucking the power from a star? I didn't see any star sucking - even a little bit. Maybe it was sucking the life out of Star Wars mythology, certainly seemed like lazy story telling to me.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This movie made back it's money within days of opening. It probably turned a profit on pre-sales alone.

The sky isn't falling. You can be disappointed in the movie without needing to come up with a narrative that the Star Wars franchised has died overnight.

You are NOT grasping the concept here...at all

 

[LukeS7]

$48.4 million profit on a super expensive movie, after ONE weekend? That's huge. That's almost unheard of. That would be a stunningly successful result. Spinning that as mediocrity is ABSURD.



Thanks Captain Obvious. That would be why I noted that comment as being speculation and NOT evidence.

And you managed to cherry pick the one thing from my post that benefits your argument and ignore everything else while at the same time mislabeling that detail. That's not in one weekend, that's to-date. It's also the estimate that's less realistic. If you want just opening weekend, that puts the gross at $450 million worldwide, meaning $292.5 million for Disney, meaning even with the low-ball estimate for the production budget, it puts the movie at a $7.5 million loss.

But I suppose that was obvious too, right? In the future, maybe don't ask for evidence then misquote it when you're provided it

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

And you managed to cheery pick the one thing from my post that benefits your argument and ignore everything else while at the same time mislabeling that detail. That's not in one weekend, that's to-date. It's also the estimate that's less realistic. If you want just opening weekend, that puts the gross at $450 million worldwide, meaning $292.5 million for Disney, meaning even with the low-ball estimate for the production budget, it puts the movie at a $7.5 million loss.

But I suppose that was obvious too, right? In the future, maybe don't ask for evidence then misquote it when you're provided it

I highlighted the relevant part. Newsflash, if this movie is at a $7.5 million loss after ONE weekend, it's doing stunningly well.

 

[LukeS7]

I highlighted the relevant part. Newsflash, if this movie is at a $7.5 million loss after ONE weekend, it's doing stunningly well.

You really can't stop with the whole "I was completely incorrect but I'm still right" thing, can you?

 

[fractal]

It'd be real nice if they'd actually have mentioned that even in passing in the film, but as it stands, Force Awakens kinda made that feel like their headquarters and that blowing that up was a major, crippling thing. Then in Last Jedi the First Order seems to be totally fine

I think it bothered me more how insignificant the "Resistance" had become. Down to what? A thousand or so? One would logically assume that after literally saving billions of lives and numerous planets from destruction it's recruiting efforts would have been given a big boost. Especially since, unlike the OT, The First Order is really the anti-establishment. In the current trilogy, the Republic was restored (which had me questioning what the Resistance was doing but that's another story) and the First Order was trying to overthrow the establishment. The Resistance score a major victory but is now to the point of insignificance. Why is the First Order even bothering with them? So hard to suspend disbelief when things don't make sense from the get go.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

You are NOT grasping the concept here...at all

You said franchise could really be starting to struggle, and that the parks could be impacted.

It's been said why this movie won't do as well as TFA. The numbers show Star Wars is still light years ahead of any other film franchise in terms of popularity.

How will a successful movie impact the parks negatively?