Mara Jade Skywalker Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 ...I took off work to see TFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainbleh Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 The last movie I saw on the big screen prior to TFA was... erm... TPM I've been surprised at how differently I react to movies on the big screen (unspoiled sometimes) versus half-watching them on TV whilst reading their entry on Wikipedia, and I seriously considered getting an unlimited card for the local multiplex (monthly cost of that is the same as for seeing two movies a month). But I'm not sure I want to spend that much time there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 That's my point Foz. Even given your circumstances you made time. Even if you had to go without sleep to do it. It was that important to you. A movie is either that important to someone ... or its not. Star Wars is for a lot of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 At this point I've told Katie that the only movies I insist on seeing in theaters are Star Wars and MCU. Everything else can wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 & 6 years to go... Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Yup. Before Star Wars, the last time I saw a movie in theater was Ant-Man, and I used to be a movie-every-weekend kind of guy. Still wish I could be, but life doesn't work out that way.Wow. I don't fully remember the last time I was in a theater, before TFA. May have been Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 That's my point Foz. Even given your circumstances you made time. Even if you had to go without sleep to do it. It was that important to you. A movie is either that important to someone ... or its not. Star Wars is for a lot of us.Yeah, I guess your point is right, but if there were two movies that were both super important to me... I still couldn't do it. There's an upper limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 It gets easier to go see movies once your kids are old enough to enjoy them with you. This is totally why I wanted to stop at one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Personally, I'm lazy. I could literally go see pretty much any movie I want at any time thanks to my baby sister working in a theater. I just don't. In 2015 the only movies I saw in the theater were Avengers: Age of Ultron, Inside Out, Creed, The Good Dinosaur, and The Force Awakens. And that was an unusually busy year for me. Kinda wish I'd made time to see Mad Max: Fury Road though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Bummer. Mad max fury road was amazing in the cinema! I hope you have a projector at home, or at least a massive TV. Cause that film kinda needs big viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The thing is that same December Avatar 2 comes out. So both of these movies will be eating the dollars up for the other. At least that's my opinion. Either that or Avatar 2 is going to be pushed back. If not, Disney made a big mistake because the have a huge investment in both.God I wish people would quit acting like as if a person is going to choose between one or the other. If they like one, they are more likely to see the other. A lot Star Wars fans see Star Wars movies 2-3 times in the theater. But there are a LOT of people who are going to choose between two movies. I certainly wouldn't see both, and even if it was a movie that I'm interested in, like say Winter Soldier vs Star Wars, I'd still have limited time to go see it. So I'd probably see Star Wars and see Winter Soldier eventually on DVD, and if I did manage to see both, that'd be during a time that I might see Star Wars a second time. The reality is that, sure, there are a lot of single people who see movies and don't have things that hold them back, but there are also plenty of people who don't have the same free time or money and have to make choices on how they'll use those scarce resources. While I understand there may be a lot of people in your same situation, where either money, time, family obligations, or other factors (all valid reasons BTW) do limit movie viewing ability, when it comes to sci fi/fantasy, there is a large demographic that span generations that will see multiple movies in the theater during the same season. Especially in the case of Star Wars and Avatar, two very high-earning franchises. Each has its own built in fan base that has been waiting for sequels. Since they are both scifi/fantasy, they have a large fan base crossover. I haven't seen any evidence to lead me to believe when it comes to those two movies, there will be a significant amount of fans that will choose to see only one movie or the other. In fact, I'd say chances are a lot higher that these two movies are exactly the type of movie that people WANT to see theatrically, and both movies are good examples of fans going to see them multiple times in the theater, and not just wait for them on DVD. I don't see Star Wars stealing movie sales from Avatar, or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'll make this simple: Competition does effect box office. Maybe you think that it shouldn't, but public mindshare is critically important to a film's success. Especially when it comes to blockbusters on the scale of Star Wars and Avatar. If you give the public a shiny new object, the previous one gets less interesting quickly. If Avatar 2 doesn't move from that date, Star Wars is indeed going to lose some money over it. But Avatar 2 will be the big loser because it's really not as much a cultural phenomenon as Star Wars. It runs a big risk of being overwhelmed by the big kid on the block. I believe that's a lot of the reason that Disney has moved the date. In the game of release date chicken, Disney flinched early. They thought that Avatar was bigger and were content with a traditional early-summer movie release. Well, now The Force Awakens is chugging towards $900 million. Disney has the juggernaut and is willing to play chicken again. So 20th Century Fox is in a pickle. They need to protect Avatar. If Episode VIII overwhelms the first of three Avatar Sequels in 2017, that's not just a one-time problem. It's going to cause a big loss in revenue over the next two movies as well. My guess is that they delay Avatar again. And that seems to be the way things are headed. If Avatar tries to break the Star Wars hold on Christmas, I believe that they'll wait until Christmas 2018. Currently the Han Solo movie is still scheduled for the summer. And even if it got pushed back to Christmas, 20th Century Fox would probably feel a whole lot safer going against a Star Wars anthology spin-off than something in the main line of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I agree with everything you're saying except in the case of Star Wars. It's too big. It's not losing a dollar to anything "shiny and new" Of course there's no way to prove this either way but it's interesting to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'll make this simple: Competition does effect box office. Maybe you think that it shouldn't, but public mindshare is critically important to a film's success. Especially when it comes to blockbusters on the scale of Star Wars and Avatar. If you give the public a shiny new object, the previous one gets less interesting quickly. If Avatar 2 doesn't move from that date, Star Wars is indeed going to lose some money over it. But Avatar 2 will be the big loser because it's really not as much a cultural phenomenon as Star Wars. It runs a big risk of being overwhelmed by the big kid on the block. I believe that's a lot of the reason that Disney has moved the date. In the game of release date chicken, Disney flinched early. They thought that Avatar was bigger and were content with a traditional early-summer movie release. Well, now The Force Awakens is chugging towards $900 million. Disney has the juggernaut and is willing to play chicken again. So 20th Century Fox is in a pickle. They need to protect Avatar. If Episode VIII overwhelms the first of three Avatar Sequels in 2017, that's not just a one-time problem. It's going to cause a big loss in revenue over the next two movies as well. My guess is that they delay Avatar again. And that seems to be the way things are headed. If Avatar tries to break the Star Wars hold on Christmas, I believe that they'll wait until Christmas 2018. Currently the Han Solo movie is still scheduled for the summer. And even if it got pushed back to Christmas, 20th Century Fox would probably feel a whole lot safer going against a Star Wars anthology spin-off than something in the main line of the series.Sorry, just gotta have to agree to disagree with you, Poe. I can see Avatar cutting in to an anthology film, maybe. But definitely not an episode film. Just isn't going to happen. And as far as Avatar fans, they have been waiting for a sequel for a long time, so Star Wars won't hurt their attendence at the Avatar films, either. Maybe its sales may be hurt a little by Star Wars competition relative to bean counter expectations, but I simply have a hard time believing that Avatar 2 wouldn't make at least the same money as the original, regardless what time of year its released or what movie it goes up against....unless it was an inferior movie to begin with and it got bad word of mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I agree with everything you're saying except in the case of Star Wars. It's too big. It's not losing a dollar to anything "shiny and new" Afraid I believe you're fooling yourself a bit there. Just think about the effect on repeat business if Avatar comes out less than a week later. If you're taking your family to the movies, do you go see the same movie you saw last week, or do you go to the new one that just came out? All things being equal, new usually wins. Star Wars can withstand competition better than most franchises, but it's not immune. Even The Force Awakens saw some nibbling at the edges from its box office take from the unexpected strength of Daddy's Home and The Revenant. Avatar would take a much larger bite. but I simply have a hard time believing that Avatar 2 wouldn't make at least the same money as the original, regardless what time of year its released or what movie it goes up against....unless it was an inferior movie to begin with and it got bad word of mouth. I don't think Avatar 2 has a prayer of making what the original made, no matter what the competition. It's just not a beloved franchise. If there was ever a flash in the pan box office champion, it's Avatar. The gimmick that it earned so much money from, 3D is not going to work a second time as pretty much every big movie has a 3D release these days. It also came out during a rather "meh" period for blockbusters in general. Check out the Top 10 from 2009: 1 Avatar2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen3 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince4 The Twilight Saga: New Moon5 Up6 The Hangover7 Star Trek8 The Blind Side9 Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel10 Sherlock Holmes Here are some of the movies coming out in 2017: 1. Star Wars: Episode VIII2. Guardians of the Galaxy 23. Spider-Man MCU Reboot4. Thor: Ragnarok5. Wonder Woman6. Justice League7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales8. Despicable Me 39. Cars 310. Coco (Pixar)11. The Wolverine 212. Pacific Rim 213. War for the Planet of the Apes14. Beauty and the Beast (live action starring Emma Watson)15. Fast and Furious 816. Kong: Skull Island17: Ready Player One (Spielberg directed)18. Ghost in the Shell19. Lego Batman20. Kingsman 2 Plus I'm sure there will be plenty of big comedies that we haven't heard a thing about. The point being that the market is a lot more full these days when it comes to competent blockbuster movies. Disney alone can match the competition of 6 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 You seem to be contradicting yourself there, Poe. On 1 hand, you would argue that Avatar 2 is going to steal away viewers from Episode 8, the one that will have Luke Skywalker by the way ( Episode 8 will break 7's records assuming it is as well done as 7, and unless it just sucks and word gets out), yet then you give all these movies to cite Avatar isn't going to do as well in the box office, relative to the first one. As for Avatar I think the reverse is true...Avatar won't be hurt by the other movies, but is going to hurt most of what you listed there,except maybe Pirates, GOTG2, and anything Pixar. Of course my argument hinges on the assumption Avatar 2 is at least at or near the same level of quality as the first movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Citing additional competition is not a contradiction. Besides, I was pointing out the difference in Avatar's competition now as compared to 2009 by listing those movies and why Avatar 2 wouldn't do as well as the original. That point had nothing to do with Episode VIII's potential. And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure Episode VIII will equal The Force Awakens. If it had to go up against Avatar 2, I'm certain it wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. We won't know for almost 2 years, but if you are still around by then, feel free to resurrect this thread, and if I am wrong, I will be happy to acknowledge it. I am not saying you are wrong, just I disagree with you at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Citing additional competition is not a contradiction. Besides, I was pointing out the difference in Avatar's competition now as compared to 2009 by listing those movies and why Avatar 2 wouldn't do as well as the original. That point had nothing to do with Episode VIII's potential. And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure Episode VIII will equal The Force Awakens. If it had to go up against Avatar 2, I'm certain it wouldn't. I'd agree it won't make as much-- in fact the performance of 8 will effect how the franchise is budgeted and marketed more than TFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 in fact the performance of 8 will effect how the franchise is budget more than TFA. Oddly enough, Star Wars films seem to be fairly cheap. Not sure if it's because Industrial Light & Magic is essentially in-house or those green screens were that cost effective, but all three Prequels ($343 million) cost less than Disney was willing to spend on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($378 million). And The Force Awakened cost a fairly standard $200 million. As far as the mainline movies go, I don't think that's much of a concern. Studios would greenlight movies all day long if they could get half of Star Wars' return for that kind of a budget. Even if they're more ambitious next time out, the point of diminishing returns should fall well below where Disney would insist on drawing the line. The bigger question, to me, is how well these anthology movies will be received. We really have no idea whether it'll limp over the $250 million mark as a moderate success or be the biggest movie of 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainbleh Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think Avatar 2 would diminish Episode VIII's earnings by stealing second or third or fourth viewings etc. If (and it's a big if) Avatar 2 has as much (2D) visual spectacle as the original (most of my friends that saw it on release thought it was flawed, but they all wanted to go to Pandora and fly around the floating islands in a Samson), I think a lot of people will want to see it on the big screen at least once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 in fact the performance of 8 will effect how the franchise is budget more than TFA. Oddly enough, Star Wars films seem to be fairly cheap. Not sure if it's because Industrial Light & Magic is essentially in-house or what, but all three Prequels ($343 million) cost less than Disney was willing to spend on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($378 million). And The Force Awakened cost a fairly standard $200 million. As far as the mainline movies go, I don't think that's much of a concern. Studios would greenlight movies all day long if they could get half of Star Wars' return for that kind of a budget. Even if they're more ambitious next time out, the point of diminishing returns should fall well below where Disney would insist on drawing the line. The bigger question, to me, is how well these anthology movies will be received. We really have no idea whether it'll limp over the $250 million mark as a moderate success or be the biggest movie of 2016. For the most part yes-- profit is profit. But in terms of what they want to spend on marketing it's a different story. Age of Ultron is a good example. Despite being a hit in terms of the box office and clearing it's budget well enough, Disney had expected it to perform even better. The marketing budget for TFA was $350 million according to some sources. Making the movie is one thing, but justifying how far you go to market it (and TFA was EVERYWHERE) is a different story. If Rogue One and/or Episode 8 underperform significantly compared to TFA (even if they make a profit) they will rethink some of their model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The marketing budget for TFA was $350 million according to some sources. You sure that's not the production and marketing budget? Because that seems beyond excessive. Especially given how much other companies footed the bill for television advertising for the film. I know I saw a heck of a lot more commercials for EA's Star Wars: Battlefront game and that one from Hewlett Packard where the kid builds an R2-D2 to ask a girl out to see the movie than I did any actual commercials for the film. Pretty sure Disney MADE money on those commercials. I know that's not where all marketing dollars go. But that's usually a large chunk of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think you may be right-- spending half again as much of your budget on marketing isn't unheard of in Hollywood-- and Disney can afford it, but my point remains I think. If other Star Wars movie underperform according to their expectation, it might mean smaller budgets for the next ones. I think the real mystery they are nervous about is how Rogue One will do as the first Star Wars movie that's not about characters we already know and love (or are curious about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Darth Hunter Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Which is why I think they will shoehorn Vader into Rogue One just so they can market the hell out of it with him as the focal point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I think Avatar 2 would of been a bigger threat a couple of years ago, but I think Cameron has left it too long. If he had brought it out in 2012 or 2013 it could of been a juggernaut franchise, now people barely seem to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts