By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Update: LucasFilm denies report | Report: Future Star Wars standalone movies on hold at LucasFilm

Ganoncrotch on 23 June 2018
Mandalore76 said:
Ganoncrotch said:

There has been a lot of potential content which could fill in the gaps in the Obi Wan movie and fill up a 2 hour movie if done correctly (possibly)

But Boba Fett I mean he has effectively zero character on screen in the original trilogy other than he was a silent bounty hunter who died in a hole, how do you even begin to market that, the only thing I could picture would be a very risky type of film with a near silent main character with the majority of dialogue coming from others who are either running from him or talking him up in scenes until he arrives and lives up to either the fears of his enemies or the accolades being bestowed to him by his peers. Otherwise what are you gonna get... him in the mandalorian armor for an opening scene where you establish him as Boba, 20 minutes to introduce his Fett family or something to be emotionally attached to, then 20 minutes of him having a child but it being effected by space cancer or something from him being a clone and that sets up a reason for him to go and bounty hunter up some people for money to pay for force chemo.

 

What I'm saying is.... from a cinematic stand point, can you sell a movie to the masses based on

"Before he went down a hole in Return of the Jedi"

"Before he was that guy that stood in the background of Empire Silently"

NOW

"played by some child actor from the prequel trilogy"

"now you finally get to see, that fight you've been waiting for from the cancelled star wars cartoon"

FETT A STAR WARS STORY

 

 

I can already hear the tickets for it not selling....

 

as for the Obi Wan movie though... I'd at least be moderately interested in that, but after TLJ and Solo in the cinema I really will need some convincing to go back to the big screen (bigger screen, have a home cinema projector lol) I will most likely be watching Ep 9 on Blu Ray if it's reviewed well by viewers or download if it's out on that first basically.

Just because Boba Fett didn't have a lot of lines in the movie, doesn't mean his character was "silent" or mute.  Boba Fett spoke and had dialogue.  In the Expanded Universe, there was an entire trilogy of books following his escape from the Sarlacc Pit.

  

Sorry can't trim this from mobile, but how much of that trilogy is still Canon and what is lidtli as legends? My guess is all legends?



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
Jon-Erich on 23 June 2018
VGPolyglot said:
Not even talking about the quality of the films themselves (I thought they were fine), a movie a year is just too much for me and I'm having trouble keeping up.

I guess it depends. Audiences are willing to watch up to three Marvel Cinematic Universe movies a year, but those movies are like serials and everyone wants to see what happens next. Star Wars isn't like that. It jumps from the Skywalker Saga to an anthology film. Personally, I think Solo would have done fine if the Last Jedi was more well received by fans. Or they could have delayed Solo to November or December, which would have given people who felt burned by the Last Jedi more time to get over it. Also, the marketing for Solo sucked.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Nem on 23 June 2018
shikamaru317 said:
Ganoncrotch said:

so they're going to push ahead and make more movies that many fans of the franchise actively want them not to make.

This would be like people who loved a sandwich joint but were allergic to peanuts found that place now insisted all sandwiches and tea came with peanuts.

The only real change so to the star wars stand alone movies after this one will be that their budgets will be even stricter again as they'll have to take into account the potentially low sales of a movie about some of the more abstract background characters from the original or even prequel trilogies. Not that a strict budget is always a bad thing, one of the cheapest made Star Trek films ever was Wrath of Khan because there was no faith in the series after the Motion picture bombed so hard... think still hard to name many Trek movies better than Khan.

Most Star Wars fans really want the Obi-Wan movie from what I've seen, they want to see Ewan McGreggor in the role again, and if they work Maul into the movie as well, which is easily possible, I think the movie will go over really well with fans. 

The Boba movie on the other hand, I've seen mixed feelings about, some people want it, others think that a character like Boba who was mostly silent in the original trilogy can't carry a movie. If I were them I'd make it about a younger Boba, show the climatic duel between Boba and Cad Bane that we were supposed to get in season 6 of Clone Wars. The young Boba actor has even expressed interest in reprising his role.

I agree that tight budgets are a smart move for them, they should try and keep them below $100m if at all possible, $120m at most. Solo was going to have a $120m budget before the expensive reshoots after the director change, would have made a profit with that original budget, especially after the home video release and tv/streaming rights were sold. 

 

Fans are excited for Obi-wan because he is a freaking Jedi. Unlike the new movies that did away with them like they are "outdated" rather than a central point of interest for the series. Killed off all Jedi and the order. What a wonderful idea! Obviously the thought of someone who never loved Star wars and yet calls the shots...

WolfpackN64 on 23 June 2018

Guess the panic was all for nothing. And appearently the real reason Solo was pushed so early was because they wanted it along their 2018 fiscal year instead of 2019.



Soundwave on 23 June 2018

If they're willing to scale down the budgets of the side films that I suppose could work OK. They can't be expecting Rogue One type business for every spin-off though that's simply not gonna happen. They can't be expecting Marvel type business either, Marvel's secret master card is the fact that their movies have a lot of humor. Thor Ragnarok is basically a full on comedy at points, Guardians is comedy sci-fi, Iron Man has a lot of jokes, Ant-Man is funny, Spider-Man is the original wise-cracking superhero with relatable teenager problems. Not MCU, but Deadpool is the same deal, that's basically full on action-comedy. 

That makes those movies much more accessible to the "non-nerd" audience. Star Wars requires by this point a fair understanding of its mythos, what is a Jedi, what is a Sith, why is a Death Star important, who is Yoda, who are all these older characters, etc. etc. etc. and is generally humor-less and dry. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 23 June 2018

Around the Network
Ganoncrotch on 23 June 2018
NightlyPoe said:
Ganoncrotch said:

The only real change so to the star wars stand alone movies after this one will be that their budgets will be even stricter again as they'll have to take into account the potentially low sales of a movie about some of the more abstract background characters from the original or even prequel trilogies. Not that a strict budget is always a bad thing, one of the cheapest made Star Trek films ever was Wrath of Khan because there was no faith in the series after the Motion picture bombed so hard... think still hard to name many Trek movies better than Khan.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn't bomb at all.  In fact, it was a big hit.  To this day, when adjusted for inflation, it's the second highest grossing Star Trek movie and only Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact did better than it for the entirety of the ten Shatner and Stewart-led movies.  Not bad considering that the movie itself was a mess.  The budget did get out of control though, no doubt about that.  It cost like twice as much as The Empire Strikes Back a year later, which is just nutty.  And all they got for their money were a few ridiculously slow scenes that only Star Trek model builders could love.

Thank goodness it didn't bomb, or that franchise would have never have never reached the peaks it did by the 90s.

I love building Trek Models....

or without lights on....

I did not love those scenes :D

But when I say the motion picture bombed, I mean it bombed compared to all sorts of expectations of it, consider it cost 46million to create in comparison to the 11million it cost to create the original Star Wars just 2 years prior, then compare the 140m it took at the box office again compared to the near 800million that Star Wars took 2 years before with quarter the budget.

Put it like this, would anyone think Star Trek: Nemesis didn't bomb even though on Wiki it's listed as having made a 7m dollar profit! 7million is a lot of money



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

thismeintiel on 23 June 2018
NightlyPoe said:
Ganoncrotch said:

The only real change so to the star wars stand alone movies after this one will be that their budgets will be even stricter again as they'll have to take into account the potentially low sales of a movie about some of the more abstract background characters from the original or even prequel trilogies. Not that a strict budget is always a bad thing, one of the cheapest made Star Trek films ever was Wrath of Khan because there was no faith in the series after the Motion picture bombed so hard... think still hard to name many Trek movies better than Khan.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn't bomb at all.  In fact, it was a big hit.  To this day, when adjusted for inflation, it's the second highest grossing Star Trek movie and only Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact did better than it for the entirety of the ten Shatner and Stewart-led movies.  Not bad considering that the movie itself was a mess.  The budget did get out of control though, no doubt about that.  It cost like twice as much as The Empire Strikes Back a year later, which is just nutty.  And all they got for their money were a few ridiculously slow scenes that only Star Trek model builders could love.

Thank goodness it didn't bomb, or that franchise would have never have never reached the peaks it did by the 90s.

That movie did bomb. It had a $35M budget, meaning that it needed to make ~$70M to break even. It made $82.26M. But, that's just the production budget, it doesn't include the advertising budget. Granted, those budgets weren't as big as they are, now, but I still think at the most optimistic estimate, it probably just broke even. Decent home video sales and fan demand are probably why they greenlit a sequel. They just made sure to keep the budget in check this time. 



 

Ganoncrotch on 23 June 2018
thismeintiel said:
NightlyPoe said:

Star Trek: The Motion Picture didn't bomb at all.  In fact, it was a big hit.  To this day, when adjusted for inflation, it's the second highest grossing Star Trek movie and only Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact did better than it for the entirety of the ten Shatner and Stewart-led movies.  Not bad considering that the movie itself was a mess.  The budget did get out of control though, no doubt about that.  It cost like twice as much as The Empire Strikes Back a year later, which is just nutty.  And all they got for their money were a few ridiculously slow scenes that only Star Trek model builders could love.

Thank goodness it didn't bomb, or that franchise would have never have never reached the peaks it did by the 90s.

That movie did bomb. It had a $35M budget, meaning that it needed to make ~$70M to break even. It made $82.26M. But, that's just the production budget, it doesn't include the advertising budget. Granted, those budgets weren't as big as they are, now, but I still think at the most optimistic estimate, it probably just broke even. Decent home video sales and fan demand are probably why they greenlit a sequel. They just made sure to keep the budget in check this time. 

Wiki has the motion picture at 46m budget but with 139m in takings. Still though comparing to to the far Superior Wrath of Khan which cost just 11m to make it was massively OTT



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

thismeintiel on 23 June 2018
NightlyPoe said:
thismeintiel said:

That movie did bomb. It had a $35M budget, meaning that it needed to make ~$70M to break even. It made $82.26M. But, that's just the production budget, it doesn't include the advertising budget. Granted, those budgets weren't as big as they are, now, but I still think at the most optimistic estimate, it probably just broke even. Decent home video sales and fan demand are probably why they greenlit a sequel. They just made sure to keep the budget in check this time. 

It actually made $139 million if you include the foreign box office, more than enough to get it past the 2x budget rule of thumb.  It was also the #4 movie of 1979 (just a few million short of #2) and held the record for biggest weekend box office ever for 18 months.  It performed comparably with Rocky 2 and Alien, two franchises that are still around to this day.

The movie was not a bomb and Paramount was very pleased with its performance.  What made Paramount not happy was that it was a nightmare production and its budget ballooned to almost triple its original $15 million.  Going into the release date (they barely finished the film in time) they were indeed very much were afraid that they would never see their money back.  If you'll click on the first link, you'll see that they were re-writing the script like crazy during production and the post-production had to be rushed after the original special effects studio pretty much wasted a year.

It's a small miracle that this bad movie was a success and not a bomb.  For their troubles, Paramount more or less took control away from Gene Roddenberry to make sure that it wouldn't happen again.  But The Wrath of Khan's budget wasn't because Paramount didn't have faith in the project as the original poster stated.  It was pretty much the usual for a big budget movie at the time and not all that big a drop from what The Motion Picture's original budget.

I was using BOM, which strangely doesn't show any FBO data.  I can't really find an original source for the $139M, either.  Still, if that is accurate, it wasn't the greatest result.  I'd imagine with advertising thrown in, the budget was ~$50M-$55M.  They made ~$69.5M from the BO, which leaves them with ~$14.5M-$19.5M.  Not enough to warrant calling it a hit, but I can see why they gave it another shot.  WOK was far more profitable.



 

starcraft on 23 June 2018
Smartie900 said:
I'm not really sure how Lucasfilm could pull of an Obi-Wan movie. He's pretty much just a hermit after Episode 3. If they attempt to make a movie out of that specific time period, I can only see it being incredibly trivial and meaningless like Solo or Rogue One.

I think there are ways to do it. The only canon from that period now is the movies and Rebels. Could easily be the case that Obi-Wan did a lot, just none of our current characters witnessed it.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS