Star Wars: John Favreau's Sequel Retcon Rumors [Discussion]

[Skulltaker]

No, we don't have to please investors.

We are discussing on a videogame message board subforum. If Kithelle says that 'Star Wars bombed a lot' then that's not talking on behalf of Investors, that's speaking an opinion. I disagree with that assessment.



But thats the thing. Two movies underperformed does not equate to 'bombing a lot'. Even in the 'investors' framing, he inferred a high quantity of failures, when the reality is more akin to a one big failure and one underperforming film.

4/5 profitable films is not 'bombing a lot'. I'm not saying Star Wars didn't hurt its profit and future, I conten this one statement that you may have not had the context of since the reply was not to you

You obviously referred to Disney, and companies in general. And just because a movie is profitable doesn't mean it didn't underperform. It obviously didn't bomb a lot, but there is a lot of wiggle room in between 'bombing' and 'doing well'. I disagree with that assessment of 'bombing a lot' as well. That's why I said 'for perspective'. The world isn't black and white. Just because a movie doesn't bomb doesn't mean it did good, or the other way around, just because a movie didn't shatter expectations doesn't make it a failure.

But there is a general tone with the new movies. And that tone is 'declining interest'. Disney didn't release 5 seperate movies. They set up to build a Star Wars universe. And the entire thing has to be viewed as one entity. And that entity is struggling. It isn't failing, it isn't bombing as a whole, but it is struggling. And generally speaking, struggling franchises don't make for a very nice bottom line.

I made my previous post not to disagree with you. That might not have been clear. Just to point out that there is a middle ground inbetween dooing good and bombing, a ground which Star Wars in general is currently treading. Some stuff is good, some is bad. They really can't afford another 'mediocre' movie right now.

So, from pure speculation, I could see how they were tapping Jon Favreau to see if he'd be interested in taking Star Wars in a different direction. Not only does he know how to produce stuff, he also displayed a general competence in getting 'the spirit' of shows and movies right. He's also incredibly likeable, wheter or not all of that is an act or not. He's someone you'd want to handle your multi-billion dollar franchise, because he appears to care for it, knows what is doing, has a good track record and a lot of experience. And I could see him throwing the idea of multiple timelines or whatever out there. I could also see that as nothing but wishful thinking, towards which I am leaning.

In the end we'll have to wait and see.

[Ivanstone]

4/5 profitable films is not 'bombing a lot'. I'm not saying Star Wars didn't hurt its profit and future, I conten this one statement that you may have not had the context of since the reply was not to you

I'd even put at 5/5.

Usually I apply the Uwe Boll Rule of Film-making to an alleged loser: Even if it looks like it lost money, it probably hasn't. Always assume there's accounting shenanigans.

[Triceron]

I'd even put at 5/5.

Usually I apply the Uwe Boll Rule of Film-making to an alleged loser: Even if it looks like it lost money, it probably hasn't. Always assume there's accounting shenanigans.

Well Solo technically didn't break even. Typically, advertising and marketting budget is equivalent of production costs.

Solo: A Star Wars Story grossed $213.8 million in the United States and Canada, and $179.4 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $393.2 million. With an estimated production budget of $275 million, the film needed to gross at least $500 million worldwide to break even.

And just for sake mentioning, Rise of Skywalker still made profit

Deadline Hollywood calculated the net profit of the film to be $300 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.

- - - Updated - - -

You obviously referred to Disney, and companies in general. And just because a movie is profitable doesn't mean it didn't underperform. It obviously didn't bomb a lot, but there is a lot of wiggle room in between 'bombing' and 'doing well'.

And I never said they did well.

You are taking my argument out of context.

Look at my posts before you replied. Where did I say the movies did well? Read them clearly. This is not my argument, this is your projection of an argument onto me, which I never said. No where did I say they are 'doing well', I simply made a case that due to other profitable means and the fact that only one movie was actually deemed not profitable, it is not considered 'Bombing a lot'. You even agree with me here, so honestly we're on the same page.

I made my previous post not to disagree with you. That might not have been clear. Just to point out that there is a middle ground inbetween dooing good and bombing, a ground which Star Wars in general is currently treading. Some stuff is good, some is bad. They really can't afford another 'mediocre' movie right now.

And if someone says 'Star Wars bombed a lot' and I counter that argument, it does not imply I am unaware that there is a middle ground, or that the series is doing good. I was countering the idea that it was 'Bombing a lot'. I will make this absolutely clear if my previous post had not already. Context is important, I'm not making blanket statements that Disney is pulling a huge profit here.

[Thee ANCOM]

why in the world would they do that. the money they bring in from merch sales alone makes this an absurd rumor. this idea that the sequels are toxic waste funnily enough came from the most toxic cornors of the SW fandom. even as someone whose appreciation for the poperty begins and ends with the Mandalorian it's a wonder to behold how bitter star wars fans are.

[Frontenac]

Both Star Wars 7 and 8 were at the first rank in the box office worldwide and Star Wars 9 ended at 7th (3rd in US) while still making 1,08 G$. So I suppose that means that the sequel trilogy must have been a failure... Meanwhile Disney is doing rather well in the stock exchange, despite the epidemic, and Kathleen Kennedy, the Devil and Maleficient's daughter according to some, is still leading LucasFilm and her contract has even been extended. So yeah, the investors must be so nervous and worried about Star Wars and their share in Disney...

[Triceron]

Both Star Wars 7 and 8 were at the first rank in the box office worldwide and Star Wars 9 ended at 7th (3rd in US) while still making 1,08 G$. So I suppose that means that the sequel trilogy must have been a failure... Meanwhile Disney is doing rather well in the stock exchange, despite the epidemic, and Kathleen Kennedy, the Devil and Maleficient's daughter according to some, is still leading LucasFilm and her contract has even been extended. So yeah, the investors must be so nervous and worried about Star Wars and their share in Disney...

Failure is relative.

In Disney's current situation, they anticipated higher profit gains and the latter movies did not meet those anticipations. In a business sense, it could be considered failing. From a blanket financial profit sense, they made gains, but it should be within the context of the fact that they're 4b in the hole (relatively, again, since some of that was paid in stock) and seeking to make back that money over a course of time. From what we're assuming, they haven't met those internal goals, and the state of the trilogy has a direct affect on future potential profit, especially if you look at how TLJ affected Solo's box office numbers.

Disney's stock isn't tied to Star Wars alone, and you can't simply attribute that it doing well means Star Wars is doing well too. That's like saying if Microsoft stocks are high then the Zune is financially sound.


In regards to what you said about Kathleen Kennedy, well

https://cosmicbook.news/disney-ignor...n-kennedy-2022

Grace also previously said that when Kennedy's contract was first renewed by Disney, nobody wanted to replace Kennedy because Star Wars was in such a state of disarray, nobody wanted the job.

Rumor has it that they will not extend her contract beyond 2022 and that the trilogy would be 'ignored'. How solid is this? It's a rumor, so take it as it is. It's no better than assuming everything is safe and sound and that investors aren't worried; we're not privvy to either information. IMO, there's no reason to assume either scenario.

[Zantera]

I feel like the failure of Disney Star Wars isn't just restricted to the films themselves but how we feel about the franchise now compared to 5 years ago. Like I know I don't speak for everyone and some people are more hyped than ever, but when I hear about new SW content now it's like hearing they are making a 7th Terminator film or something to that effect. A few years ago I would have been full hype mode.

[Frontenac]

Failure is relative.

In Disney's current situation, they anticipated higher profit gains and the latter movies did not meet those anticipations. In a business sense, it could be considered failing. From a blanket financial profit sense, they made gains, but it should be within the context of the fact that they're 4b in the hole (relatively, again, since some of that was paid in stock) and seeking to make back that money over a course of time. From what we're assuming, they haven't met those internal goals, and the state of the trilogy has a direct affect on future potential profit, especially if you look at how TLJ affected Solo's box office numbers.

Disney's stock isn't tied to Star Wars alone, and you can't simply attribute that it doing well means Star Wars is doing well too. That's like saying if Microsoft stocks are high then the Zune is financially sound.

I know that. Still, it is telling that there is no change in direction, that Disney is still doing well and that they announce new production for Star Wars. That some movies did not do as well as they intended does not mean that Star Wars is doing all bad.

In regards to what you said about Kathleen Kennedy, well

https://cosmicbook.news/disney-ignor...n-kennedy-2022



Rumor has it that they will not extend her contract beyond 2022 and that the trilogy would be 'ignored'. How solid is this? It's a rumor, so take it as it is. It's no better than assuming everything is safe and sound and that investors aren't worried; we're not privvy to either information. IMO, there's no reason to assume either scenario.

Show me an article that does not quote youtubers with stupid names, and I will take you seriously. Kennedy has been fired so many times by their ilk that to me they are all little boys who cry wolf.

[Triceron]

Show me an article that does not quote youtubers with stupid names, and I will take you seriously. Kennedy has been fired so many times by their ilk that to me they are all little boys who cry wolf.

Sure, as soon as you show me an article that quotes investors having full confidence in Kathleen Kennedy.

I mean, what is the point here? I'm providing information where it's available, not creating an argument out of pure assumption. I'm not saying you need to believe everything that's written, but just the same there's nothing backing your assumption that everything is fine and dandy just because they renewed her contract; there's no context behind what the Investors actually think in this regard.

I'm not here to convince you otherwise, I'm here to point out that your conclusion (regarding Investors) is just as baseless as the reasons you're using to dismiss information that you are not convinced of.

If you want to phrase this all that it's your opinion that Star Wars is doing fine and the Investors don't have anything to worry, I'm fine with that. But if you're going to use Disney stocks and Kathleen Kennedy's contract renewal to support that opinion, then there really isn't any context there; it's purely correlation.

I know that. Still, it is telling that there is no change in direction, that Disney is still doing well and that they announce new production for Star Wars. That some movies did not do as well as they intended does not mean that Star Wars is doing all bad.

I'm fine with this and I agree. I don't think it means bad for Disney or that the franchise is necessarily doing all bad. But I don't think we can assume investors opinions either.

[Ivanstone]

Well Solo technically didn't break even. Typically, advertising and marketting budget is equivalent of production costs.

Those still aren't the same thing. For example, its quite possible that some of those marketing costs are paid to other elements within the Disney media empire. I can't speculate about how much that would be but its one reason I take losses with a grain of salt.

Solo is still a clusterfuck but if HBO is willing to make some cash using the Snyder JL cut, I wouldn't be too shocked if Disney somehow tries to monetize the Lord-Miller elements of Solo.

[PaladinSum]

Those still aren't the same thing. For example, its quite possible that some of those marketing costs are paid to other elements within the Disney media empire. I can't speculate about how much that would be but its one reason I take losses with a grain of salt.

Solo is still a clusterfuck but if HBO is willing to make some cash using the Snyder JL cut, I wouldn't be too shocked if Disney somehow tries to monetize the Lord-Miller elements of Solo.

I don't know if they actually completed their cut of the movie. And would they be down with doing that or does Disney even need their premission?

Might be worth a shot. Not chomping at the bit, but always fascinated by movies ended by "creative differences".

[Nero Duskwind]

Disney knows that the new ones are basically just bad remakes of 4,5, and 6.

Worse than bad, they were forgettable. I'm on the very casual end of SW fandom and even I can still remember iconic moments from 4,5, 6 and, hell, even from 1, 2, and 3. I watched 7, and 8 and all I can tell you is that I remembered sitting in front of a screen watching them. There was literally nothing remarkable or noteworthy about either film that I can try to recall and, as such, I'm not going to bother with Ep 9.

[Triceron]

Solo is still a clusterfuck but if HBO is willing to make some cash using the Snyder JL cut, I wouldn't be too shocked if Disney somehow tries to monetize the Lord-Miller elements of Solo.

Solo didn't do poorly in the box office because it was a bad movie.

Solo did poorly because of blowback from TLJ and fans choosing not to watch the next Star Wars movie out of protest, and it also came out in around the same time as Deadpool 2 and Infinity War.

A 'Lord Miller' cut wouldn't really change anything. Most people who I know who actually saw the movie had very few complaints about it. I ended up watching it and I the movie was fine, it's just not a movie I would have gone out to see in the theatres (personal anecdote).

[rhorle]

Sure, as soon as you show me an article that quotes investors having full confidence in Kathleen Kennedy.

Because you won't find something like that. But we know that Disney has full confidence in the brand and used Star Wars as one of the key components in their resiliency during the pandemic back in march. There really is to much projection of hate onto a solitary figure. Could they certainly replace her like rumors say is true? Sure. But that has nothing to do with investors and investors could easily find no faith in the new lead because of a lack of stability.

I think you keep confusing investors with "fans". The rumor has been going since 2018, if not earlier, that they were looking for a replacement.

[Triceron]

I think you keep confusing investors with "fans". The rumor has been going since 2018, if not earlier, that they were looking for a replacement.

Right, but you're answering speculation with more speculation.

And my whole point us that its all speculation so we shouldn't be assuming investors feel one way or another about Kennedy. There is nothing to back it. No one should be assuming anything of Investors as a means of supporting an argument for-or-against Star Wars or Kathleen Kennedy.

Also, you mention too much hate on Kathleen Kennedy in this reply, I am curious why you think you need to state this. Because I posted a rumor that counters the assumption that investors are fine and dandy? Cuz I was merely using the article as an example of a documented rumor that contends with an otherwise baseless assumption.

[Ivanstone]

I don't know if they actually completed their cut of the movie. And would they be down with doing that or does Disney even need their premission?

Might be worth a shot. Not chomping at the bit, but always fascinated by movies ended by "creative differences".

If I recall correctly it was about 75% or more complete. Which is part of the reason the reshoot looks so dumb.

Lord-Miller's participation wouldn't be a requirement and Disney owns all the material. I'm not claiming this is a good idea but its something that Disney does own and if you own it there's always the possibility of making money from it.

[Xeenith]

is it that hard to understand that, while the movies made money, disney and it's investors still have paid 4.5 billions $ to buy the IP and they need to get that back to get "even" ?
the movies made money but the IP itself is still in debt
investor don't want to put that much money if they can't get it back AND MORE in a timely fashion.

and I love how people are like "oh the rumor mean they want to remake 7-9"... no it mean the movies go to legend status, and they star something else, somewhere/sometime else, and maybe put as much space they can to make the ST out of the mind of "hater", all to get back interest and hype in the IP. to make more money, to get even with the first 4.5 billions spent and make profit, the blood of investors...

[Ivanstone]

Solo didn't do poorly in the box office because it was a bad movie.

Solo did poorly because of blowback from TLJ and fans choosing not to watch the next Star Wars movie out of protest, and it also came out in around the same time as Deadpool 2 and Infinity War.

A 'Lord Miller' cut wouldn't really change anything. Most people who I know who actually saw the movie had very few complaints about it. I ended up watching it and I the movie was fine, it's just not a movie I would have gone out to see in the theatres (personal anecdote).

Solo is a clusterfuck because they almost reshot the whole movie and still ended up with a weak movie. Putting it against Deadpool and Infinity War is also clusterfuckish marketing.

Regarding its sales. I just looked at some of the figures for Waterworld which had very similar numbers for budget and theatrical release to Solo after you adjust for inflation. Waterworld was considered to be a bomb on release but by 2013 it had made 67 million dollars. I really don't think Solo is in a bad spot.

[rhorle]

Also, you mention too much hate on Kathleen Kennedy in this reply, I am curious why you think you need to state this. Because I posted a rumor that counters the assumption that investors are fine and dandy? Cuz I was merely using the article as an example of a documented rumor that contends with an otherwise baseless assumption.

Because it is true. It is usually projection of dislike onto other aspects. The rumors have been going on for at least 2 years. We can assume how investors feel based on how they react to Disney and the messages Disney uses when they talk to investors. Its clear. Their is still faith in Star wars and its Leaders with in Disney. The investor stuff is all open to be read and we can see how the investors react based on stock fluctuations on specific things. The stock price wasn't really impacted on May 4th with the new announcements (it was going down prior and went up a few days after to go back to may 4th price).

[Frontenac]

Sure, as soon as you show me an article that quotes investors having full confidence in Kathleen Kennedy.

You are saying that investors have problems with Star Wars. You have the burden of the proof. From what we see, there is nothing that could tell us that Disney's investors are worried or that Disney's administration do not trust Kathleen Kennedy anymore. So the reasonable assumption is that things are not as bad as the haters make it.