[TV] Disney+ Star Wars: The Acolyte

[rhorle]

I explained why Kennedy isn't a red flag.

So red flags can be wrong when you don't agree with them but when you might agree with them they can't be wrong. Lmao. I did explain why it isn't a red flag. You can lie and invent whatever you need to justify your silly mental hoops but don't actually expect people to believe them.

A writer is also a person, and not a trait. So yet again your own statements don't match your argument and show that you are wrong. The writers in question have learned about Star Wars so even the trait you are saying is a red flag no longer exists.

You are honestly trying to claim the below post was not an explanation? I even provided a link to the show runners own explanation of for why the red flags you suggested are not a problem.

Why is having the perspective of someone new to the lore a bad thing though? Leslie Headland said she didn't want just die-hards writing but a mixture. Plus a quote from her implies that the ones that haven't seen Star Wars familiarized themselves with the lore once hired. She didn't look for the entire team of writers to be new to the lore so this isn't a red flag as some understanding exists. An interview she gave on it is long but covers the topic of writers room and new-to-lore vs die-hard perspectives: https://www.avclub.com/leslye-headla...s-y-1847118044

Your second example of a potential red flag is strange given the first one. You say the show should draw in new viewers and not be just for die-hard fans without having writers on the team that can give the perspective of new to Star Wars viewers. These are only red flags if people are looking for something to nitpick over. They are perfectly fine approaches to a show

[Syegfryed]

Yes, if you ignore the proof later given.

i will just act like you do other times when the imd/rt is brought up: its not rly valid, because audience rating is not rly universal and can be boosted

Cherrypick, another term you don't understand.

no, no, i do understand, you are only using the rt/imbd when its convenient for your argument, when its for marvel tv shows or other stuff is suddenly not valid anymore.

You can tell when something is getting reviewed bombed or boosted, my guy.

Yes, thats why you can say the disney tv shows are heavily boosted. The amount of boots in the comments giving 5 stars and saying a generic quote is bogus.

"review bomb" isn't enough to fuck up with the ratings, but companies paying up for their shenanigans can, the sheer difference in manpower and money show results;

If you are going to attempt "correct" me, do it correctly.

See, that's the problem with you people, im not rly trying to "fight" or "correct" you, it was a mere observation that the lowest score would be from mando season 3

[rhorle]

Yes, thats why you can say the disney tv shows are heavily boosted. The amount of boots in the comments giving 5 stars and saying a generic quote is bogus.

Has it ever been shown that positive comments are largely from bots? It is easy to see review bombing when it occurs. The same sentiments that lead to review bombing can also be reflected on social media and YouTube. So it is very easy to spot when it happens. I'm not claiming companies can never buy services to boost good reviews but has there been any evidence that Disney has done so for Star Wars?

Review bombs are enough to mess with ratings. If you honestly believe it has no effect then you haven't looked at examples where it has happened.

[Darththeo]

i will just act like you do other times when the imd/rt is brought up: its not rly valid, because audience rating is not rly universal and can be boosted

So, you are going to act how you assume I act?

no, no, i do understand, you are only using the rt/imbd when its convenient for your argument, when its for marvel tv shows or other stuff is suddenly not valid anymore.

Wrong. Because unlike you point to the fact that it is an influx of negative reviews, going this isn't a sign of an accurate opinion. Or you have reviews dropping less than 10 minutes into when the episode came out. You know, actual data, not head stuff.

And this is focused on one aspect. The reality is most people don't give a shit about the product. There is no world where the loud people are anything but a minority.

Yes, thats why you can say the disney tv shows are heavily boosted. The amount of boots in the comments giving 5 stars and saying a generic quote is bogus.

"review bomb" isn't enough to fuck up with the ratings, but companies paying up for their shenanigans can, the sheer difference in manpower and money show results;

What are you ranting about? You can say it, but you have no proof. Can you point to an influx of positive reviews or copy pasted rating? If you can't you are just ranting.

Show proof of boost, otherwise you aren't doing what you think I do. You are doing something different. You are doing what you always do, deny facts contrary to your view.

See, that's the problem with you people, im not rly trying to "fight" or "correct" you, it was a mere observation that the lowest score would be from mando season 3

Yes, people have a problem when you say something stupid. I am talking about shows and you brought up a season of a show. Book of Boba is still the lowest rated live action SHOW. Mandalorian Season 3 is rated lower, but the overall show is higher.

So either you were trying to correct me or bringing up an irrelevant statistic, either way, it makes you look foolish.

And you even prove the "loud" isn't the majority. Meh =/= bad, meh is by definition mid. It's take it or leave it. The middle. People don't "meh" things they dislike/like. So, you are proving that the loud people aren't the majority and yet you still asked me to prove they aren't when you accept that reality!

[rhorle]

What are you ranting about? You can say it, but you have no proof. Can you point to an influx of positive reviews or copy pasted rating? If you can't you are just ranting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxaWE97QElI

This isn't an endorsement for the claims made in that video. I didn't even watch it but found a reddit thread that discussed the video. It does however show that there are reviews that could potentially be suspicious. It doesn't mean they were fake. People can just leave similar reviews with popular phrases. Some sites make you put a minimum word count to even leave a star rating.

It also doesn't show who is potentially flooding sites with fake positive reviews. It could be Disney, it could be a fan with access to a botnet, it could be some third party marketer that gets paid based on metrics. I'd be much more inclined to believe that Disney buys critic reviews over fan reviews. If they did we wouldn't see many shows rated bad by fans because why pay for reviews just to keep a show at a bad rating.

[Darththeo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxaWE97QElI

This isn't an endorsement for the claims made in that video. I didn't even watch it but found a reddit thread that discussed the video. It does however show that there are reviews that could potentially be suspicious. It doesn't mean they were fake. People can just leave similar reviews with popular phrases. Some sites make you put a minimum word count to even leave a star rating.

It also doesn't show who is potentially flooding sites with fake positive reviews. It could be Disney, it could be a fan with access to a botnet, it could be some third party marketer that gets paid based on metrics. I'd be much more inclined to believe that Disney buys critic reviews over fan reviews. If they did we wouldn't see many shows rated bad by fans because why pay for reviews just to keep a show at a bad rating.

That's what I am asking him to do with the shows. Can he point to the influx or potentially botted reviews.

Also, with Kenobi, the most popular ratings on IMDB are 8 and 7 for the show ... who buys/bots reviews for that? (Ahsoka on IMBD has highest at 7 as well, 10 is second, but 8 is 3rd; and Book is similar to Kenobi with 7 and 8 being the highest selected. You could argue Ahsoka on IMDB is minorly boosted as 10 is 2nd highest, but that won't impact the score that much.) It makes no sense. And you can also compare different sites, if something is consistent rated among multiple sites it is less likely to be boosted/bombed. Who bots for a 7/10?

The issue is he accused me of "Cherrypicking" ... by using multiple sites showing a consistency. And going into the data showing how it is unlikely to show bots are impacting. Again, boosts/bombs tend to get smoothed out over time. Fan reviews tend to be heated on first showing. I loathed TLJ when I first saw it, but after seeing it later, I realized it was not nearly as bad as I originally felt. It still isn't great, but I would not rate it as low because I am reviewing with less emotion later on.

[Syegfryed]

Wrong. Because unlike you point to the fact that it is an influx of negative reviews, going this isn't a sign of an accurate opinion. Or you have reviews dropping less than 10 minutes into when the episode came out. You know, actual data, not head stuff.

you are still saying "if there is a great influx of negative reviews is review bombed, but when there is a great influx of good reviews is not", cause you realize it works both way right? that bots will go 10 minutes episodes goes and give 5 stars right?

you can look at the reviews, a lot of 5 stars are straight up bots. They say the same robotic pre-response. There is even the ones "it had good and bad parts, but overall good" 5 stars... if there is bad points, should not be at least 4.5?

The reality is most people don't give a shit about the product.

Yeah, because the product is that mediocre.

[Darththeo]

you are still saying "if there is a great influx of negative reviews is review bombed, but when there is a great influx of good reviews is not", cause you realize it works both way right? that bots will go 10 minutes episodes goes and give 5 stars right?

I haven't said nor implied that, Syeg. In fact, I have literally implied the opposite of that. So, why do you constantly lie about what my position is? You are literally doing the "So you hate pancakes" meme here.

I have stated to you that you have read and replied too. I like to use the data WHEN IT IS OLDER and the boosts/bombs have been given time to smooth out. You cannot say I am saying "good influx is not boosted" and be in this discussion with honest intention. You are lying.

you can look at the reviews, a lot of 5 stars are straight up bots. They say the same robotic pre-response. There is even the ones "it had good and bad parts, but overall good" 5 stars... if there is bad points, should not be at least 4.5?

Because for some people a 5 out of 5 doesn't mean "perfect." The problems may not be large enough to remove a star or part of one for the person. People in general tend to go to certain points (1 and 5 being picked far more often than the rest, and 3 is next most common. And 2, 4, and others are rarely chosen in comparison.)

Not everyone treats 5/5 as "The best ever" or "Perfect" or "Flawless." Seriously, it isn't hard to understand why someone would give a five on a scale. There are movies I have seen I say are 5/5, but they aren't flawless, there are issues with them. But, those issues aren't enough to knock it down.

Yeah, because the product is that mediocre.

That doesn't follow logically. Not caring =/= product is mediocre.

[Endus]

you are still saying "if there is a great influx of negative reviews is review bombed, but when there is a great influx of good reviews is not", cause you realize it works both way right? that bots will go 10 minutes episodes goes and give 5 stars right?

you can look at the reviews, a lot of 5 stars are straight up bots. They say the same robotic pre-response. There is even the ones "it had good and bad parts, but overall good" 5 stars... if there is bad points, should not be at least 4.5?

The easiest method to use is to compare to a bell curve distribution. Ratings should, in a vacuum, tend towards the same number; while some people might rate a film higher or lower, if it's averaging around a 7/10, that'll be the peak of the distribution, followed by 8 and 6, and falling off on either side from there.

Review bombing is identifiable when you've got that kind of curve and another big peak at either 10 or (more commonly) at 1, or whatever the highest and lowest ratings are. Those separate peaks are false peaks driven by the brigading, either positively or negatively. If those just fall off naturally, there's no real evidence of any brigading.

So, for instance, if we look at Captain Marvel on IMDB; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154664...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

The central peak is around 7/10. There's another bump at 10/10, and another bump at 1/10. Those can both be pretty safely written off as brigading, leaving us with the ~7/10 rating, and an understanding that people rating it 1/10 are crank trolls who aren't engaging honestly. Any film with a significant bump of 1/10s is a film that's been brigaded by bad-faith reviewers spamming dishonest ratings to try and make the film look unfairly negatively received.

By comparison, look at The Marvels; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067604...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Massively brigaded by 1/10 trolls. An honest rating is around a 6.5/10 (still not great, mind you), but IMDB's math drops it a full point based on that brigading alone. Sure, there's also an unfair bump at 10/10, but it's not to the same scale/degree.

It's really not hard to identify review-bombing/brigading just by applying basic statistical mathematics. It's objectively determinable.

- - - Updated - - -

Because for some people a 5 out of 5 doesn't mean "perfect." The problems may not be large enough to remove a star or part of one for the person. People in general tend to go to certain points (1 and 5 being picked far more often than the rest, and 3 is next most common. And 2, 4, and others are rarely chosen in comparison.)

Not everyone treats 5/5 as "The best ever" or "Perfect" or "Flawless." Seriously, it isn't hard to understand why someone would give a five on a scale. There are movies I have seen I say are 5/5, but they aren't flawless, there are issues with them. But, those issues aren't enough to knock it down.

There's been a weird push with customer reviews to rate everything 5/5 unless there's something majorly wrong with the product. I rate things on Amazon sometimes, and I've had sellers contact me about 4/5 reviews before because they felt it was unfair even if there were problems. There's a strong social pressure to rate everything 5/5 unless there's major problems, not just the product being only okay/decent.

And also dipshits rating something 0/5 because the box arrived damaged. Like, that's not the seller's fault, that's Amazon's. Stop being a dickwad about things.

[Darththeo]

TThere's been a weird push with customer reviews to rate everything 5/5 unless there's something majorly wrong with the product. I rate things on Amazon sometimes, and I've had sellers contact me about 4/5 reviews before because they felt it was unfair even if there were problems. There's a strong social pressure to rate everything 5/5 unless there's major problems, not just the product being only okay/decent.

And also dipshits rating something 0/5 because the box arrived damaged. Like, that's not the seller's fault, that's Amazon's. Stop being a dickwad about things.

Yeah, there is that too. It is especially true on apps like Doordash or Lyft, if you don't give 5/5 it looks bad on the person even if they did nothing wrong. Like 5/5 gets treated as "standard" or "good enough" or whatever. The idea that doesn't apply elsewhere is odd.

Like I gave a dasher a 4/5 because they got on the highway and took longer to get to my house rather than take the road that got them straight to me. No, they didn't have another delivery because they never stopped moving and I know how long that route takes because I occasionally have to take it in the winter. I got a thing "We are sorry you were unhappy with your order" ... I was more annoyed than unhappy. I gave a 4 because of annoyance, like why would you do that?

[Biomega]

Yeah, there is that too. It is especially true on apps like Doordash or Lyft, if you don't give 5/5 it looks bad on the person even if they did nothing wrong. Like 5/5 gets treated as "standard" or "good enough" or whatever. The idea that doesn't apply elsewhere is odd.

Like I gave a dasher a 4/5 because they got on the highway and took longer to get to my house rather than take the road that got them straight to me. No, they didn't have another delivery because they never stopped moving and I know how long that route takes because I occasionally have to take it in the winter. I got a thing "We are sorry you were unhappy with your order" ... I was more annoyed than unhappy. I gave a 4 because of annoyance, like why would you do that?

This is one of the big problem with ratings systems - the seem to imply some kind of linear distribution, but they are in fact almost always extremely nonlinear. I talked to an Uber driver about this, and getting 3/5 ratings is basically where Uber terminates you. So 5/5 rather than denoting excellence defines "normal, no incident" whereas 4/5 means "there was a problem" - and anything 3/5 and below is pretty much "this was a maniac I was scared for my life". But if you asked people how they think any random 1-5 rating system works, I doubt they'd tell you that they think 3/5 equals catastrophe. They'd probably say something like "wasn't great, definitely should have been better" or whatever, but in practice 3/5 means COMPLETE FAILURE in a lot of contexts.

And in the same vein, 1-10 movie scores are extremely nonlinear as well. A 6/10 is not "average" or "mediocre", it basically already means "this is horseshit" - and so 1-5 are almost meaningless, and pretty much just a competition for who can leave the most sardonic or hurtful comments. And of course as established above the 10/10 and 1/10 ends are just the playground of trolls (in either direction) as almost no film in history has deserved either a 10/10 *or* a 1/10 (though to be fair it's probably way more realistic to see a genuine 10/10 than a genuine 1/10 simply because we're talking commercial products here and no one is submitting their terribly edited home movie with papier-mâché effects for this kind of review).

[rhorle]

So 5/5 rather than denoting excellence defines "normal, no incident" whereas 4/5 means "there was a problem" - and anything 3/5 and below is pretty much "this was a maniac I was scared for my life". But if you asked people how they think any random 1-5 rating system works, I doubt they'd tell you that they think 3/5 equals catastrophe.

That is because the scale is not defined by random people that use it. It isn't really a problem of the rating system because it is still useful for the goals of Uber, Retail, and others that treat 5/5 as a baseline rather then exceptional. It is all about understanding what the rating system means. Ignorance of how companies use that data doesn't mean the system is flawed.

[Syegfryed]

Massively brigaded by 1/10 trolls.

And even higher number of bots that gave 10/10, almost the double.

An honest rating is around a 6.5/10 (still not great, mind you)

honest rating for The marvels is 3.5/10, 4/10 if you want to be generous

[Endus]

And even higher number of bots that gave 10/10, almost the double.

You're agreeing that The Marvels was massively brigaded by people posting 1/10 reviews, right? Because it's not clear whether you're agreeing, or trying to claim that twice as many gave 10/10s.

honest rating for The marvels is 3.5/10, 4/10 if you want to be generous

No, at no point were we discussing personal ratings, we were discussing the honest average of ratings given by the audience.

And in that framing, it's nowhere close to that low. It's somewhere around 6.5. Mathematically. Not opinion.

[Darththeo]

You're agreeing that The Marvels was massively brigaded by people posting 1/10 reviews, right? Because it's not clear whether you're agreeing, or trying to claim that twice as many gave 10/10s.

I am going to assume he means double and it was just poor wording on his part.

No, at no point were we discussing personal ratings, we were discussing the honest average of ratings given by the audience.

It's Syeg. He was confused on how someone could give 5/5 stars to a movie/show they admit has bad parts. I don't expect him to understand we aren't talking about personal ratings.

And honestly, if Kenobi and Book of Boba Fett is a 1 for you ... you need to readjusted your scale because they are no where close to the worse products made by Disney.

[Syegfryed]

It's Syeg. He was confused on how someone could give 5/5 stars to a movie/show they admit has bad parts. I don't expect him to understand we aren't talking about personal ratings.

Thats not me being confused, thats just people using the rating system wrong

And honestly, if Kenobi and Book of Boba Fett is a 1 for you ... you need to readjusted your scale because they are no where close to the worse products made by Disney.

You mean to me? i think they are both 2/5 or 2.5/5. Both shows start good with the two first episodes, but fall appart with bad writting and nonsense shit happening for the rule of cool or for the funny, with sometimes an ok finale, this is true to marvel tv shows as well.

I said it before, disney don't know how to do tv shows, the pacing is fucked, the writing is bad, they need to learn how to do shit with HBO

[rhorle]

disney don't know how to do tv shows

Like Andor? Loki? Shogun? Only Murders in the Building? Catherine the Great? The Bear? Moon Knight? Werewolf by Night? There are more that I haven't named. Disney knows how to produce entertainment. They don't always have hits but few studios always do.

[PACOX]

Like Andor? Loki? Shogun? Only Murders in the Building? Catherine the Great? The Bear? Moon Knight? Werewolf by Night? There are more that I haven't named. Disney knows how to produce entertainment. They don't always have hits but few studios always do.

People often forget what Disney owns and only focus on the negative. The stuff you mentioned should all be in recent memory.

[Syegfryed]

Like Andor? Loki? Shogun? Only Murders in the Building? Catherine the Great? The Bear? Moon Knight? Werewolf by Night? There are more that I haven't named. Disney knows how to produce entertainment. They don't always have hits but few studios always do.

Im pretty sure Shogun and the bear are not made direct by disney, its something related to the old fox studio that was acquired, that now is FX network or something like that, it even stream on hulu and only stream on disney+ in the countries there is no hulu. tuff like marvel and star wars is more direct, and all of then seem to be the same formula

Andor was a hit yeah, but its one of many misses, and some people still had problems with pacing.

Catherine the great? isn't that a HBO series?

Werewolf by night is not a tv show, it was a special

Loki and Moon knight suffer the exact same problems i mentioned, good two first episodes, it fails of the rails later with pacing, bad writing and overarching plots. Moon knight finale had a kaiju fight with the dude changing the stars in the sky lol

[Ihavewaffles]

Disney ‘Star Wars’ Box-Office Profits Fail To Cover Cost Of Buying Lucasfilm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolin...h=c18255d6bb7f
Caroline Reid, Senior Contributor - Apr 14, 2024,05:30pm EDT

Box office profits generated by Disney's Star Wars movies have fallen $2.8 billion short of covering the media giant's purchase of the sci-fi saga’s creator, Lucasfilm, according to analysis of recently-filed financial statements.

Disney bought Lucasfilm for $4 billion in 2012 and soon gave the green light to a new trilogy of Star Wars movies which teamed up rising stars Daisy Ridley and John Boyega with Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and the late Carrie Fisher who headlined the original movies more than 30 years earlier.

All the stars aligned when The Force Awakens, the first film in the new series was released in 2015. According to industry analyst Box Office Mojo, it grossed a staggering $2.1 billion causing Disney to commission two spinoff movies as well as the two sequels that were already planned. However, as the series continued there was a disturbance in the force due an over-reliance on computer generated effects and a lack of the gritty quirky characters who made the original movies smash hits.

In 2019, The Rise of Skywalker, the third instalment in the new trilogy, hauled in around half as much at the box office as The Force Awakens though the series soon had a renaissance. Just a few weeks before the first case of Covid-19 was discovered in December 2019, Disney debuted its first Star Wars streaming series, The Mandalorian.

It was a instant success thanks to the unlikely pairing of its protagonists. The series is named after a gruff armor-clad bounty hunter, played by Pedro Pascal, who is tasked with tracking down the family of a pointy-eared green alien called Grogu.

Photos of the cute character went viral because of its resemblance to beloved Star Wars sage Yoda. The timing couldn't have been better as it thrust The Mandalorian into the spotlight just as the world went into lockdown. Viewers were stuck indoors for the majority of the following year leading to a surge in subscriptions to the Disney+ streaming platform.

The Mandalorian was watched more than any other show and, according to Nielsen, it racked up 5.4 billion minutes of viewing time during its seven-week run, peaking at 1.2 billion during the week its finale aired. It didn't just appeal to fans but critics too.

Audiences awarded The Mandalorian a 92% rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes whilst critics went even further with a score of 93%. In fact, the industry liked it so much that it was nominated for six Primetime Emmy Awards and forty-two Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards, winning in 15 categories.

Unsurprisingly it was renewed for two further seasons and even spawned its own spinoff series, The Book of Boba Fett, which premiered in December 2021. The only reason that a fourth season of The Mandalorian hasn't gone into production is that a movie based on its two stars is due to be released in 2026. It doesn't stop there.

The show's success spurred the development of a suite of new Star Wars productions. Since it debuted, three other streaming shows have been released and three more movies are in development in addition to The Mandalorian and Grogu.

The declining interest in Disney's initial trilogy of movies seems like a distant memory and the Mouse has made the most of it. Last month, Disney released a 67-page presentation singing the praises of its chief executive Bob Iger in a bid to convince stockholders to side with him in a battle with activist investors.

One of its key boasts was about the supposedly spellbinding return on investment generated by the franchises that Disney acquired under Iger.

The presentation gives the impression that Disney's Star Wars trilogy generated a 2.9 times return on the purchase of Lucasfilm as that figure is presented next to a timeline of key events in the production company's history. They include the release of the Disney movies and its acquisition of Lucasfilm which is the only milestone marked with a star. Adding to this impression is the fact that at the other end of the timeline is the Star Wars logo and a photo of the Mandalorian with his little green friend.

However, buried in the fine print is the revelation that the purchase price of Lucasfilm isn't even included in the ROI calculation. Instead, it is purely based on the box office performance of Disney's Star Wars trilogy, its two spinoff movies, merchandise, DVD and Blu Ray sales.

As revealed, the methodology is questionable as Disney based the ROI on the revenue generated by the movies, merchandise, DVDs and Blu Rays rather than the profit they made as it should have done. Using the revenue rather than the profit artificially inflates the result as it doesn't factor in the costs that Disney had to pay out.

Even this wasn't enough for the media giant so it also forecast the revenue that it expected the Star Wars movies, merchandise, DVDs and Blu Rays to generate over a ten-year period and based the calculation on that too. In other words, Disney hasn't actually received the revenue that it used to calculate the return on its investment.

In summary, despite seeming to do so, Disney's presentation doesn't actually reveal whether its Star Wars movies have covered the cost of its purchase of Lucasfilm. There may be good reason for this.

Analysis of more than 800 pages of company filings has revealed that the cost of making Disney's five Star Wars movies hit a total of $2.1 billion, peaking at $567.3 million (£449.1 million) on The Force Awakens. However, that's just the start.

Mindful of this blockbuster budget, Disney devised an ingenious way to make money back on the movie. Instead of shooting it in the United States, it chose Pinewood Studios in the United Kingdom, where the original trilogy of films was made. This enabled it to benefit from the UK government's Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit which gives studios a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the UK provided that it represents at least 10% of the film's total costs.

At the start of this year the UK government slightly raised the reimbursement ceiling from 25% in the face of competition from other countries which are offering similar schemes. It has helped to make the UK a dream ticket for movie makers and according to the British Film Institute, foreign studios contributed around 77% of the $1.8 billion (£1.4 billion) spent on making films in the country last year.

With so much at stake Disney didn't take any chances and got endorsement from the UK government right from the start. In 2014 Treasury Secretary George Osborne proudly announced that Pinewood would not just be home to The Force Awakens but also its two sequels. "This will mean more jobs and more investment," he said. "It is great news for people working at Pinewood Studios, from the set designers to the carpenters."

The production also had an impact farther afield. Sets featuring the iconic Millennium Falcon and X-Wing space ships were built at a Royal Air Force base about 55 miles west of London whilst the mountainous Lake District region in the north of England was the setting for the planet Takodana, hiding place of the sword-like Lightsaber weapon belonging to Hamill's Luke Skywalker character.

Using local staff wasn't the only catch that came with the generous fiscal incentives. Movie budgets are usually a closely-guarded secret as studios tend to absorb the cost of individual pictures in their overall expenses and don't itemize how much they spent on each one. However, the costs of movies made in the UK are consolidated in single companies which file annual financial statements showing the cash reimbursement, headcount, salaries, total expenses and more.

The production companies usually have code names so that they don’t raise attention when filing for permits to shoot off-site. The Disney subsidiary behind The Force Awakens is named Foodles Production after the cafe next to the San Rafael California headquarters of Kerner Optical, the original practical effects division of Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic VFX firm.

A condition of receiving the cash reimbursement is that the companies must be responsible for everything from pre-production to delivery of the movie and paying for services relating to the finished film. It is one of the reasons why Foodles is still booking costs on its financial statements more than eight years after The Force Awakens was released.

Another reason is that the companies often file the financial statements around a year after the period they cover. This is why the latest results for Foodles were filed in December 2023 and are for the year-ending December 31, 2022. During that period the company spent $3.5 million (£2.8 million) bringing the total budget for The Force Awakens to a massive $567.3 million (£449.1 million).

Surprisingly, this isn't more than Disney expected as the financial statements noted that "at the year end the estimated total cost was within budget." Salaries alone came to a total of $22.7 million (£18 million) with staff numbers peaking at 258 without even including freelancers and self-employed workers who make up the majority of the crew.

Then comes the cash reimbursement which was a whopping $92.2 million (£73 million) bringing the movie's net costs down to $475.1 million. As we revealed in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper last year, including the streaming shows, Disney has received more than $410 million (£325 million) in reimbursements from the UK government. No wonder Disney thanked Osborne in the credits of The Force Awakens and gave him several replica Lightsabers.

The second-biggest budget was for 2019's The Rise of Skywalker which cost $542.4 million (£429.4 million) to make. At the other end of the spectrum are the two Star Wars spin-offs which were also made in the UK. Rogue One is a prequel to the first Star Wars film whilst Solo tells the origin story of Ford's Han Solo character.

Several of the Star Wars Disney+ streaming series were also made in the UK so their costs are known but, unlike the movies, their profit cannot be calculated. This is because Disney+ subscribers pay a single fee which grants them access to all of its content making it impossible to determine how much subscription revenue is generated specific shows. In contrast, if they had been screened at the theater, viewers would have had to pay separately to watch them all.

Theater chains typically get around half of the takings with the remainder going to the studios. Deducting the $475.1 million net cost of The Force Awakens from Disney's share of the box office leaves a blockbuster profit of $559.6 million. This is 1.2 times its net costs giving Disney a 1.2 times return on its investment.

Its 2017 sequel The Last Jedi had a multiple of 1.1 times, as did the 2016 spin-off movie Rogue One. However, as the graph below shows, its net profit in Dollar terms was half as much as the amount made by The Force Awakens.



Disney spent a total of $298.7 million (£236.5 million) making Rogue One which was a tremendous gamble as it largely featured little-known actors. Although it paid off with a healthy profit it could have made even more as the filings for the movie state that "the final cost was higher than the agreed budget."

At the other end of the spectrum is Solo: A Star Wars Story which is Disney's only loss-making Star Wars movie. During production of the 2018 Han Solo origin picture, directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were replaced with Oscar-winner Ron Howard who reportedly carried out extensive reshoots causing costs to skyrocket.

The impact of this is revealed in the financial statements for the production company behind Solo which say that "the final cost was higher than the agreed budget." A total of $350.4 million (£277.4 million) was spent on making the movie which also got $63.2 million (£50 million) of its costs reimbursed bringing its net spending to $287.2 million. However the movie bombed at the box office as the takings came to just $392.9 million leaving Disney with an estimated loss of $90.7 million.

Aside from this loss, the accolade for the lowest profit and ROI multiple in Disney's Star Wars series goes to The Rise Of Skywalker even though the financial statements reveal that its costs were "below the production budget." Its $112.4 million (£89 million) bottom line brings the total net profits from Disney's five Star Wars movies to $1.2 billion which is $2.8 billion short of the purchase price of Lucasfilm.

Bearing this in mind it's little surprise that Disney's presentation didn't work out the return on its acquisition of Lucasfilm by using the profits of the movies as it has still got a long way to go just to break even.

Of course, the calculation above doesn't include the huge profits Disney makes on the Star Wars merchandise, DVDs and Blu Rays. However, it also doesn't include the massive marketing costs of the movies as well as the costs of the Star Wars streaming shows and theme park attractions which also don't have revenue streams directly connected to them as visitors get access to all of the rides for the price of a single ticket.

Likewise, the calculation doesn't include the results of the other Lucasfilm franchises. As we recently revealed, Disney lost $134.2 million at the box office on its latest Indiana Jones movie and Lucasfilm's streaming series based on 1988 fantasy film Willow was canceled despite the Mouse pouring more than $100 million into it. Lucasfilm also owns the Industrial Light & Magic visual effects division though that is far smaller than its flagship franchises.

The Star Wars movies are the jewel in Lucasfilm's crown and generate the lion's share of the revenue which is of course why Disney highlighted them in the timeline in its presentation. With several Star Wars movies in the pipeline, Disney still has a chance to get its money back through their box office profits. The films have rediscovered the magic formula to appeal to fans but aren't yet a force to be reckoned with for investors.