On March 13 2019 17:23 hexhaven wrote:
In 10 years it'll be impossible to tell if Venom came out in 2018 or 2004.
In 10 years it'll be impossible to tell if Venom came out in 2018 or 2004.
When I first saw it, I thought I had taken a time machine back to the mid 90s. So many little details are reminiscent of Demolition Man, the third Die Hard, and every action movie of that era. It turns out the initial script was finished back in 1997.
On March 13 2019 22:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well it was no bust though, they made their money back already and future projects will most likely make them a ton as well. Yes solo's performance wasn't great, but even that one made them money.
Well it was no bust though, they made their money back already and future projects will most likely make them a ton as well. Yes solo's performance wasn't great, but even that one made them money.
Solo was estimated to lose 50-80 million when taking reshoots into account.
On March 13 2019 22:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:
While toy sales seem to be down, it's still doing well by any reasonable standard (now ofc these corporations only want to grow each and every year so there is that). It's just not the 80s anymore, or even early 2000s. There is entertainment everywhere right now, so many different franchises and options. Marvel is the big boy now, not star wars.
The real test will be the new star wars sagas anyway, how will star wars do when there is no link to either luke skywalker or darth vader. If they wanted to play it safe they would do content around luke until the end of time (and trying to please the oldschool fans who are now in their 30s, 40s and 50s), instead they give D&D (game of thrones) and rian johnson himself a carte blanche with these projects. Will be interesting!
While toy sales seem to be down, it's still doing well by any reasonable standard (now ofc these corporations only want to grow each and every year so there is that). It's just not the 80s anymore, or even early 2000s. There is entertainment everywhere right now, so many different franchises and options. Marvel is the big boy now, not star wars.
The real test will be the new star wars sagas anyway, how will star wars do when there is no link to either luke skywalker or darth vader. If they wanted to play it safe they would do content around luke until the end of time (and trying to please the oldschool fans who are now in their 30s, 40s and 50s), instead they give D&D (game of thrones) and rian johnson himself a carte blanche with these projects. Will be interesting!
Remember that Disney only makes a fraction of its total annual revenue from movies. Just like how "Disney princesses" and all the old characters were monetized to hell and back, the company's M.O. is to turn visual media properties into a merchandising empire. Not just action figures but backpacks, plush toys, Disneyland rides, anything that can be used as an extension of the IP. And reliance on this business strategy has only increased in prominence since the home-video market started its decline around 2009.
Disney bought primarily for two reasons: longevity and an assumed 'captive bloc' of adolescents/young men. Thanks to the extended universe and diehard male fans that passed their love of the to the next generation, the franchise survived 2 decades without a live-action film to its credit. Marvel never had that type of track record; until The Avengers, Disney was hedging their bets that acquiring Lucasfilm could soften the blow from any failure. They didn't expect to exsanguinate their expected demographic and lose popularity.
I don't have faith in either. Their weaknesses as screenwriters and directors are antithetical to what made Star Wars attractive in the first place. And giving them carte blanche shows Disney upper management didn't learn anything from their success with Marvel Studios; the Marvel universe works due to an incessant focus on quality control and avoiding controversy. From a business perspective, Feige did a stellar job of keeping the movies on message.