Star Wars Star Wars - General Discussion / Legends / Comics

Remove this Banner Ad

Sure, if you ignore all the other context provided, such as merchandising, the fact they were just five movies and six years into a property they own forever. They were likely profitable the year TFA came out thanks to $7b in merchandise sales, everything else is a bonus.

I still wonder why Star Wars and Marvel cost $4b and Pixar $7.4b. Maybe they thought being kids movies, they'd generate more merchandise but it feels like Star Wars and Marvel both outperform Pixar on the front now.

I'm not the one ignoring anything.....
 
Jack is definitely smart enough that we all figured he was accounting for both costs and marketing, now he's playing dumb
The comment SM keeps referring to is in the Solo thread.

You're cute GG; they have made $4.5b off three films. Pretty sure they are comfortable with the value they are getting out of it.

No mention of net profit, just the amount of money made from three films and how Lucasfilm would be comfortable with that. SM then came in and started talking about how they don't make movies for free like some kind of gotcha moment. He interpreted it the way he wanted to interpret it.
 
The comment SM keeps referring to is in the Solo thread.



No mention of net profit, just the amount of money made from three films and how Lucasfilm would be comfortable with that. SM then came in and started talking about how they don't make movies for free like some kind of gotcha moment. He interpreted it the way he wanted to interpret it.

They didn't 'make' 4.5bn though, that's what you're struggling to understand either deliberately or otherwise. They 'made' the profit, because the costs are intrinsically linked. And as you've just posted, that profit was substantially less.

I interpreted it exactly the right way and I'm not sure why you're still maintaining that revenue and cost isn't implicitly linked.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well it'd be 4 billion + the film costs, TV show costs, marketing costs, merchandise production costs, theme park costs and other s**t. There's also some other LucasFilm properties, well, most notably, the Indiana Jones franchise. So it'd be the cost of all that combined v the profit of all of that combined.

In any case, I doubt it's done as well as they'd hoped, especially the films post-TLJ.

I wonder what box office amount would be considered a success for their next SW film at a minimum. Around 1.2-1.3 billion? More?
 
Well it'd be 4 billion + the film costs, TV show costs, marketing costs, merchandise production costs, theme park costs and other s**t. There's also some other LucasFilm properties, well, most notably, the Indiana Jones franchise. So it'd be the cost of all that combined v the profit of all of that combined.

In any case, I doubt it's done as well as they'd hoped, especially the films post-TLJ.

I wonder what box office amount would be considered a success for their next SW film at a minimum. Around 1.2-1.3 billion? More?
The rise of streaming means we will never truly know the cost/benefit of Star Wars overall like we do with films. There's rumours the first season of Mando cost $120m but we don't know exactly how much that drove in terms of subscriptions and the show itself doesn't get licensed to networks like in the past. We do know Mando season 1 was right at the beginning of Disney + and probably drove a significant number of people to the service. But Ahsoka is rumoured to cost $100m and how many new people could that have driven to the service?

As for movies, it's hard to say what they hoped for. Before TFA, I reckon if you had said $1b-$1.5b each on average, they would have been happy. But after TFA made $2b, they probably would have felt $1.3b and $1.1b was below par.

That all said, if they are indeed making anywhere between $5-7b in merchandise in a movie year (and let's be harsh and say $2-3b in a non movie year), that's paying for all their films, TV shows and then some. They were in profit ages ago. The only outlier there is the theme park, which is a long term investment. The land for Galaxy's Edge was reportedly $1b, one ride, The Rise of the Resistance, reportedly cost $200-450m. But the measure of success would be even more hidden.

Anyway, it's been an interesting rabbit hole.
 
The rise of streaming means we will never truly know the cost/benefit of Star Wars overall like we do with films. There's rumours the first season of Mando cost $120m but we don't know exactly how much that drove in terms of subscriptions and the show itself doesn't get licensed to networks like in the past. We do know Mando season 1 was right at the beginning of Disney + and probably drove a significant number of people to the service. But Ahsoka is rumoured to cost $100m and how many new people could that have driven to the service?

As for movies, it's hard to say what they hoped for. Before TFA, I reckon if you had said $1b-$1.5b each on average, they would have been happy. But after TFA made $2b, they probably would have felt $1.3b and $1.1b was below par.

That all said, if they are indeed making anywhere between $5-7b in merchandise in a movie year (and let's be harsh and say $2-3b in a non movie year), that's paying for all their films, TV shows and then some. They were in profit ages ago. The only outlier there is the theme park, which is a long term investment. The land for Galaxy's Edge was reportedly $1b, one ride, The Rise of the Resistance, reportedly cost $200-450m. But the measure of success would be even more hidden.

Anyway, it's been an interesting rabbit hole.

You're the one that posted the article confirming they haven't made their money back what are you even trying to argue?
 
You're the one that posted the article confirming they haven't made their money back what are you even trying to argue?
jfc, what is your major malfunction? The article said they hadn't made the money back on the movies alone. The movies aren't the entirety of the Star Wars property. I'm trying to have a discussion about financials, which I find interesting, you're trying to make a six-year-old gotcha to prove you're the smartest person in the room while completely missing the point of the conversation. Try addressing the topic or try not commenting... I know it's hard for you.
 
jfc, what is your major malfunction? The article said they hadn't made the money back on the movies alone. The movies aren't the entirety of the Star Wars property. I'm trying to have a discussion about financials, which I find interesting, you're trying to make a six-year-old gotcha to prove you're the smartest person in the room while completely missing the point of the conversation. Try addressing the topic or try not commenting... I know it's hard for you.

You still don't get it do you?

The discussion was specifically about the movies and the costs associated. You argued for years that they'd made their money back 'when ignoring the costs'. You want to call someone a six year old, why don't you look in the mirror with your continued fingers in the ears 'I can't hear you' stance on actually understanding how profitability works. You then actually post the article that proves what the rest of us have been saying and you STILL somehow seem to argue the opposite. Like, why bring it up only to argue against yourself?
 
You still don't get it do you?

The discussion was specifically about the movies and the costs associated. You argued for years that they'd made their money back 'when ignoring the costs'. You want to call someone a six year old, why don't you look in the mirror with your continued fingers in the ears 'I can't hear you' stance on actually understanding how profitability works. You then actually post the article that proves what the rest of us have been saying and you STILL somehow seem to argue the opposite. Like, why bring it up only to argue against yourself?

I think Jack was saying the conversation topic is 6 years old, not you.
 
I think Jack was saying the conversation topic is 6 years old, not you.

Haha fair point, but the broader point remains that he was the one that brought the conversation up not me.
 
Side note, I found a fan edit of Revenge of the Sith that weaves in the last four eps of The Clone Wars and the pilot of Bad Batch (not up to that bit yet) plus the deleted scenes around the birth of the Rebellion. Really enjoying it just as a way of watching all that content in chronological order. Not to retread the same old discussion, but it also really shows how, medium aside, the Clone Wars content really does stand side by side with the live action.

Anyway back on this, really enjoyable edit. I think it could have done with dropping out some of the Bad Batch pilot because its pacing doesn't really work with the rest of it, but the inter-cuts between them standing on Kamino watching Palpatine's speech with the live action is breathtakingly good, as is Mace Windu's "I sense a plot to destroy the Jedi" which cuts in and out of ROTS and The Clone Wars. Some really, really good moments that work so well.

Only thing that's a glaring issue is Anakin and Obi-Wan chilling on Coruscant talking about updates on the war front and not talking about Ahsoka fighting Maul. :tearsofjoy: Otherwise I think this really elevates the content.
 
I had thought for a moment my little cinema in my little town might give it a miss, but no, three OT films on May 4, three prequel films on May 5 (no sequel films :disrelieved:). I think I saw ROTJ on the big screen during COVID, so might watch TESB on Saturday and let the boy choose between TPM and ROTS on Sunday (I draw the line at AOTC).
 
I had thought for a moment my little cinema in my little town might give it a miss, but no, three OT films on May 4, three prequel films on May 5 (no sequel films :disrelieved:). I think I saw ROTJ on the big screen during COVID, so might watch TESB on Saturday and let the boy choose between TPM and ROTS on Sunday (I draw the line at AOTC).

I'd love to see ANH/ESB/ROTJ on the big screen but think I'm out of action on May 4 annoyingly.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Didn't realise it's a marathon session, so not sure how that works anyway, do they tell you when each movie will start if you only want to watch one?

Might wait for the 50th anniversary of ESB when my daughter will be old enough to appreciate them.
 
They are running one after each other, but each have individual times at my cinema, so assume you can just pick one.

In the US, the 25th anniversary of TPM is running with a sneak peek of The Acolyte, presumably not the whole episode... would have loved to see that on the big screen after.
 
They are running one after each other, but each have individual times at my cinema, so assume you can just pick one.

In the US, the 25th anniversary of TPM is running with a sneak peek of The Acolyte, presumably not the whole episode... would have loved to see that on the big screen after.

I checked last night and they just had the start time of the marathon at mine.
 
Didn't realise it's a marathon session, so not sure how that works anyway, do they tell you when each movie will start if you only want to watch one?

Might wait for the 50th anniversary of ESB when my daughter will be old enough to appreciate them.
Assuming your daughter enjoys them as much as you of course ;)
 
Think all parents hope their kids grow up with what we like :tearsofjoy:

Well yeah that's why I'm saying I may as well wait until she's old enough to give her a proper chance to watch it when she can take in what she's watching lol.
 
The special edition re release back in 96 or 97 was the first time I was able to see them on the big screen. The battle of Hoth in the cinema was glorious.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top