Boycott Failed - 1 Billion Goal Unlocked, Kennedy Wins


Fanboy Tears
😁 How is Disney +?

reply

Fake Boycott!

reply

Not a boycott, personally I never called for one. I simply said if you did not like TFA and/or TLJ than you should not continue to give Disney your money. And you know what based on the actual numbers it under performed. Not as many saw it as could/would have and even fewer went in for multiple viewings.

Case in point. Of all my family and all my co-workers I only know of 1 person that actually saw it. 1 out of probably over 100 people. Think about that for second. YOu know how many of them saw Endgame? Nearly all of them. Episode IX should have been like Endgame. that does not sound like a boycott, but it does sound like a series that no one was interested in anymore; or at least the interest was greatly decreased; thus leading to it under performing.

reply

In the end domestic box office should be about 500 million, which Disney takes 65%, that is 325 million. Internationally should be about 550 million, which Disney takes 45%, that is 247.5 million, that is a total of 572.5 million. The movie costs about 200 million to make, plus about 250 million marketing cost, it still makes about 122.5 million.

A number quite impressive as a standalone movie but not as part of star wars franchise, which costs $4 billion. TFA made about 550 million, TLJ is around 150 million, this one around 125 million, Rogue One made about 130 million and Solo lost about 300 million, together total profit is about 655 million for 5 movies. That is another 3,445 million to go to turn a profit for the Disney investment.

So you still think Kennedy is winning?

reply

Kathleen Kennedy is an old lady who has now been working for Disney for years after previously being Spielberg's lapdog. Even if she got the boot tomorrow, we'll have had a stack of crappy films and she'd walk away with a nice fat payoff and a stack of Disney shares no doubt.

Kennedy isn't winning. She's already won.

reply

In terms of that I agree.

reply

Exactly, it is strange that the Disney fans are trying to play the "it hit 1 billion in ticket sales" as a positive when the 'finale' Star Wars film made less than half of what it should/could have if it wasnt such a shit trilogy. Star Wars films all should be hitting Marvel Avengers type money and Episode IX should have been right up there with Endgame. Instead it is going to clear less than half of what Endgame did. and as you said Disney is only going to see an ROI less than $150 million. No matter how you look at it, this is not the success story it should have been. Disney fans are delusional, they see 'look it make $150 million for Disney'. I see, 'so what, it is Star Wars they should have made over $500 million on each film'.

reply

Well since that Queenfan guy isn't here to point it out, let's not forget the trillions that Disney also lost with Dumbo. They won't break even from that fiasco and the Lucasfilms purchase until Star Wars CIX - Sith Party.

reply

they make 100m+ on merchandise and helps sell Disney + and Disney Parks. Money is money. She Won.

reply

A number quite impressive as a standalone movie but not as part of star wars franchise, which costs $4 billion. TFA made about 550 million, TLJ is around 150 million, this one around 125 million, Rogue One made about 130 million and Solo lost about 300 million, together total profit is about 655 million for 5 movies. That is another 3,445 million to go to turn a profit for the Disney investment.


^^^^

Lol please do a little research before posting....

The Last Jedi Netted Disney a confirmed $417 Million in Profit
The Force Awakens a confirmed $780 Million in Profit
Rogue One Netted Disney a confirmed $318 Million
Solo Lost Disney between 50 and 80 Million(although IMO I think its possibly 100 to 115 M)
The Rise Of Skywalker Will Net Disney a Minimum of 300 M+


Your numbers are disastrously off and not even in the realm of reality....Literally a 2 minute google search could have easily provided you with the confirmed Net Profit for these films and ALL OF THE TOP 20 films of each year for the last 8 years!

In your terrible attempt to make it seem like Disney didnt make a good investment, Not only did you disastrously Mislead and post incorrect profits for all the films...but conveniently you left out The MOST IMPORTANT part of the deal .....MERCHANDISING ....

Not only has the Disney's Star Wars films Literally Made INSANE Profits but based on all the articles I've read, The Profit Disney Makes from Merchandising off a Star Wars film Is Literally MORE than The profits they make from Theatrical box office...

almost no words can describe just how badly you failed here in your awful attempt to try and Dishonestly claim Disney made a bad investment....

Its perfectly fine for you to dislike the Star Wars films or even Disney itself.....but you cant just make up facts in an attempt to claim "see they made a bad investment"

I know next to nothing of the Star Wars franchise, I had never seen a SW movies until TFA....so I'm not a SW nut hugger....

but I do follow box office and I'm sorry but Your Post was not only NOT FACTUAL but was so wrong it came across delusional....


do some research into the actual Box office numbers then do some research into the Profits Disney makes from Star Wars movies and Spider-man movies both of which are among the highest Merchandising properties of all time



Here are links to the confirmed profits of the SW films-

https://deadline.com/2016/03/star-wars-the-force-awakens-movie-profit-2015-lucasfilm-disney-1201726142/

https://deadline.com/2018/03/most-profitable-movies-2017-star-wars-the-last-jedi-rian-johnson-disney-fox-merger-1202356161/

https://deadline.com/2017/04/rogue-one-box-office-profit-2016-1202054697/


https://www.businessinsider.com/solo-a-star-wars-story-expected-to-lose-disney-50-million-report-2018-6/



you asked the question " So you still think Kennedy is winning?"


The answer is YES....

With correct box office numbers.....Disney and Kennedy and the SW deal is a run away grand slam

reply

I read the articles but they are not the net profit numbers announced by Disney, but speculations the same as mine.

In the one for Rouge one:

The film grossed $531 million domestic, $453 million international and $70 million in China for a total of $1.055 billion globally. The film came in at a $200 million production cost, not surprising since the extra work put in to fix the ending. Our experts say the Participations and Off-the-Tops reached $62 million, which put total costs at $515 million, and revenues at $835 million. That left Disney with a a net profit of $319 million and a Cash on Cash Return of 1.62,

"revenues at $835 million"? Where did that come from? $1.055 billion global box office with $835 million revenue? Disney's take of box office has to be over 80%. Do you even believe that?

Word of advice: Don't just believe things on a news web site.

reply

Word of advice: Don't just believe things on a news web site.

^^^

Lol

I cant believe you basically just stooped to....."dont believe the fact"

The Web site in Question, is deadline which has been doing the same "Most Profitable" List now for that last 8 years.

In the list, They talk to Insiders, trusted sources and rival studios..They Get this information and how it works from The People who literally do it.

Since 2013, Deadline has listed the top 20 Most Profitable Movies of the year every year, and NOT ONCE has any studio or movie called into question their info/numbers....

You are more than within your right to desperately claim "Nope dont care what the facts and evidence says"..

But I and pretty much everyone else in world have no problem Listening to Trusted sources....



you could have made this much easier by simply just saying "Damn I was Off, My bad"

instead you went down the Lonely and desperate road of "Nope dont care whats being reported, I'll IGNORE the facts and pretend I'm right"


Deadline has no reason to lie....They arent a studio, they dont get anything....They are reporting these numbers for all different movies and Studios...

In these top 20 Most Profitable Lists, These are doing the Math and Numbers for Warner Bothers,Sony,Universal, Fox and Disney....there is no Biased....They simply bring in Professionals who have worked in the industry and who's job were to do the numbers and They figure out all the Math of where The Money went and where the Money is coming in...

Your numbers arent based on anything, You didnt take into account the Half of dozen things that need to be taken into account, you simply based yours off 65% domestic and 45% overseas takes....There is so Much more that need to be taken into account and thats why you were so disastrously off

as for your comments about "Its just speculation like Mine" and again that statement is so Absurd Its Literally Delusional!

its also worth noting Forbes does there Highest Paid actors list every year

and almost every year since 2013 RDJ is near the top

I've read an article(which I cant find now) but in the article In breaks down how RDJ made his money for that year....

In the breakdown, RDJ's Biggest Money came from Backend money from IM3,AOU, Civil War, AIW and AEG where he gets a set percentage of Profits...The article broke down the money and showed the profits from Age of Ultron and Infinity War were dead on what Deadline had reported....

you may be desperate enough to try and Ignore deadline but If you know anything about Contracts, The actor and His representatives have a right to the films numbers, The can audit the films profit to make sure they are getting the percentages that are in the contracts....those numbers arent "speculation"

and based on the Forbes articles, RDJ's paydays match up exactly with what deadline's reported profits were....

anyways....No need to take this any further.

you know you were wrong and your just fighting it....for whatever reason you let your hatred for Disney/Star Wars get the best of you and tried to claim they made a bad deal based on WRONG and possibly intentionally misleading info....

then when you get called out with clear Proof, you decided to take the "Nope dont care what the evidence says, I'm right and eveyone else is wrong" road....

PS....

My favorite "Intentionally Misleading" numbers from you was that Solo lost 300 Million....

I was so stunned by that, I literally googled "Solo star wars lost 300 Million" to see If there was even a single article reporting that....your numbers were so astonishingly wrong, I truly that you had to have just made it up .....sure enough...I couldnt find a single article reporting anything close to 300 Million

I can only assume, You came to this absurd number in 2 possible ways...

1. you just intentionally Lied and Purposely tried to make it look like Disney Lost WAY more than they really did out of anger and hatred

0r 2. as I said above, you simply didnt know how to do the math and take into account the many things you need to in order to come up with a REAL number....

either way...Its quite damning for you that somehow you came up with 300 Million dollars losses for Solo....When every other of a half dozen websites came up with loses between 50 to 80 M....

somehow you were wrong by between 4 and 6 TIMES what the actual number was....



PSS....

You still got the problem of Merchandising

You tried to claim They made a bad deal with incorrect and misleading box office numbers....

Then when you get hit with real Box office numbers, you desperately claim "Nope dont care, the website is wrong"

annnnnnnnnd Yet theres still the fact that you conveniently left out The BILLIONS Disney has made from Star Wars merchandising

lol so in conclusion...

In order for you to TRY and attempt to make it seem like "Disney made a bad deal"

You had to give false and incorrect Box office numbers and LEAVE OUT Merchandising...

Epic fail

reply

My calculation is quite simply. You can get the box office numbers from IMDB. Disney takes 65% of domestic box office and about 45% of international box office, that is actually very high by industry standard, which is usually 50% and 30%. Now you get their revenue number (to simplify I just use 55% of global box office number).

IMDB also has the cost of production. Marketing cost is usually the same as the production cost (to simplify I just use $250 million as marketing cost for all of them). Now you get the total cost. After that it is simple math.

You have this thing on your shoulders, try to use it sometimes.

reply

If the movie was done well, it would have cleared 2 billion.

reply

not a chance after TLJ divided fans, the best outcome would have been 1.5b

reply

not really, since all future star wars projects have been put on hold.

reply

lies, Disney has 3 movies already dated

reply

they do, thought they were cancelled?

reply

I don’t ever remember there being a real boycott. What were the boycott even be about?

Kathleen Kennedy did fail in the end. While the film was a massive success, it still fell FAR below projected numbers. They estimated a $600 million opening weekend and only made $179 million. They were projecting record breaking numbers and only got an average successful blockbuster. The critical and audience reviews have also almost all been blunders.

It would be like building a custom Lamborghini that you predict will hit a top speed of 400mph, but in reality it only reaches 190mph; still very fast, but nowhere near as fast as you had hoped, and because several other lesser cars already go that fast and faster, few are impressed.

reply

Who are the "they" that estimated a $600 million opening weekend? 4 years ago, after the success of The Force Awakens, the most optimistic total domestic box office for part 9 was $600 million. Not opening weekend, but best case scenario, the most the film would earn domestically was $600 million.

reply

Disney, Forbes, BO Mojo, etc. Though I do realize that most sites lowered it to a $400 million and then again to a $200 million opening a few days before release.

reply

I challenge you to find me any source that even suggested $600 or $400 million was possible for the opening weekend. Avengers Endgame opened to a record-breaking $350 million. Zero intelligent lifeforms in the universe predicted Rise of Skywalker would equal that, let alone nearly double it.

reply

Who called for a boycott?

reply

The Fandom Menace, a group as effective as Occupy Wall Street....

reply

Tru Dat!

Disney's sweeping the floors with them, they only need a few more billion before they break even on the franchise.

reply

I don't recall them calling for a boycott. They want great movies, with a great, organic story to tell and these movies haven't provided that...and the end results show many others agree.

reply

They urge people not to see the films unless they get what they want. It's pretty much the same thing.

reply

But that is true. Why should people pay money for things they do not want?

reply

People can do whatever they want. I was just answering your question about the boycott.

reply

Urging people not to see it (especially if those people said they did not like TLJ) is not a call for a boycott. A Boycott is more like a cultural movement against a product or service for some kind of insult or harm the business caused and is against the company, not only one of the company's products. If they had urged people to stop seeing Disney films all together than yes, that is a little more like a boycott.

reply

Lol. OK.

It was a boycott.

reply

No it was not. How many called for people not to see Endgame? How many called others not to buy disney +? From what I saw it was only calls to not see Episode IX.

Would you say it was a boycott of Mcdonalds if I called for everyone to no longer order big macs? If you did, then you don't understand what a boycott is.

reply

Would you say it was a boycott of Mcdonalds if I called for everyone to no longer order big macs?
No. I'd say it's a boycott of Big Macs.

reply

boycott:
verb
withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.

noun
a punitive ban on (relations with other bodies), cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.

To boycott means to stop buying or using the goods or services of (a certain company or country) as a protest; the noun boycott is the protest itself.

You do not understand the definition of boycott. Simply put you are wrong.

reply

Not all definitions specify that a boycott must entail a country, organization, or person. The definition you provided is only listing them as examples anyway:

boycott:
verb

to refuse to buy a product or take part in an activity as a way of expressing strong disapproval.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/boycott

You can most certainly boycott a brand or product, and Star Wars qualifies as both.

reply

Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts

Find me one example in this list in which it was a boycott against only a product and not the organization. The Cambridge online is a crap definition.

webster:

: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions

dictionary.com:

verb (used with object)
to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion:
to boycott a store.
to abstain from buying or using:
to boycott foreign products.

In any and every example you find the boycott is against an organization, country or person and not an individual product. Find me one example to the contrary.

reply

Here I will give a hypothetical. Say you really hate Robert De Niro so you decide to 'boycott' the film Joker but then watch The Irishman. Then it is NOT a boycott of Robert De Niro; you only didn't see one of his films.

reply

Find me one example in this list in which it was a boycott against only a product and not the organization.
"In 1965, Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Assn. urged the public to boycott grapes to compel growers to provide better pay and working conditions"

Boycotting one product and not the entire farming industry.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-boycotts-history-20180228-htmlstory.html

The Salad Bowl strike was a similar situation.

reply

Read the actual story:

"The Delano grape strike was a labor strike organized by the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC), a predominantly Filipino and AFL-CIO-sponsored labor organization, (against table grape growers in Delano), California to fight against the exploitation of farm workers"

The boycott was specifically againast grape growers in Delano California. that is a group not a product, the grapes were a tool not the goal. It was not a boycott against grapes. and it was official and set up by an actual organizational body. It was not just some people online saying don't go see a movie. You can maybe make the argument that TROS was the tool of a boycott but no such official call or organizational body existed.

same thing with the Salad bowl:

"The strike was led by the United Farm Workers against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters"

Where are the calls for boycotts against Lucasfilm or Disney in comparison? It does not exist. There are only some people saying 'you shouldn't pay to see TROS'. That it. Not a boycott. Not even closely comparable.

reply

Even if I conceded your point about the definition of a boycott, it hardly changes the fact that one was indeed called for, whether it is a legit boycott or not. One only need see how #boycottstarwars and #boycottepisodeix was trending to see this was the case.

reply

see i am not on twitter so I did not see those. People that called for it through their twitter feed are being drama queens. They care that much they should organize an actual official group to 'boycott' Lucasfilms. then it would not be pathetic wind blowing.

But it also means a boycott was not called for. It means a bunch of randoms were 'hoping' someone would call a boycott but noone ever did. An individual cannot alone call for a boycott, in the same way you can't boycott a product. It is a group vs group action not an individual vs a product action.

reply

It means a bunch of randoms were 'hoping' someone would call a boycott but noone ever did.
It's worth noting that #boycottdisney and #boycottlucasfilm were often included in these posts as well.

However, now I think we're arguing the same point from different ends. Whatever call existed was a waste of time and energy. I also agree it never amounted to anything official.

reply

Yes, I think we are in agreement then; there was never a real boycott and therefore the boycott did not fail, it just didn't exist because there was never enough of an actual movement or organization to support it.

However despite the fact that there was not a boycott, the movie might have made significantly more money had the franchise not been so poorly handled. TROS should at least matched Endgame, instead if is only about half of that.

of about the 100 or so people I work with and know on a day to day basis; only 1 has actually seen the film. that is incredible when you think about it. Nearly all of them saw Endgame within 1 month of the release, about half within the first week. with this 'final' Star Wars film only one person I know saw it. That is not the result of a boycott, it is a result of a bad product that people have lost interest in.

reply

Yes, the ST could have made more, but Johnson really threw a wrench into it with TLJ. It's the result of not having a plan for this trilogy and just letting individuals director run roughshod over the franchise. However, at this point, they're probably just happy to still be in the billion dollar club.

Hopefully, this is a lesson well learned and they actually have a plan for the next movies they release.

reply

My opinion is it was not TLJ that threw the wrench into everything; but TFA that was a bunch of poorly contrived plots and characters that were executed implausibly which set up a bunch of mysteries with no real answers. In short there was nowhere to go that would 'work' from a story telling stand point.

From a money making standpoint, if they are happy with only barely being in the billion dollar club when they should have been aiming for twice that amount, they are fools that don't understand business. That is not the case, Disney knows how to make money and they have to see this for what it is. A disaster, one of the strongest IP in history is now barely able to keep up with Fast and Furious numbers.

They might have learned the lesson but for a lot of burned fans (myself included) it might be too late.

reply

Mandalorean makes me have faith good things can happen if the right choices are made.

reply

My faith is not easily restored, one okay show is not enough to wipe out the bad taste of 3 terrible movies in the main franchise, mediocre side films, and outright disregard and insults to the fans.

reply

Mistakes were made no doubt, and i dont disagree with you (even though i was OK with TFA) but its very early days in the grand scheme of things, it took Lucas almost 10 years to craft the OT, took Disney 6 years (released the triology in 4) years , its obvious that they rushed things.

The Mandalorean and some of the stories from recent Video Games, Jedi Fallen Order is very interesting, makes me believe some good stuff maybe ahead, who knows.

reply

They definitely rushed things; I also don't think it helps when filmmakers know they are making a trilogy but don't already have it all tied together.

with the ST they both knew it was going to be a trilogy telling 1 overarching story but didn't bother to actually come up with that story and tried to rely on the individual films to basically 'craft' their own.

That created a really bad disconnect in between the films. With the OT they did not know they were making a trilogy. With something like Lord of the Rings the trilogy was already planned out before the first frame was shot.

A film cannot work as part of a trilogy if they are making it the same way they would a stand alone film. Consideration of what comes before and after has to be made. TFA (IMO) did neither.

reply

Also , they should also of used Lucas's story treatments, he should of written them , by all means get guest directors, Peter Jackson, Speilberg , even JJ , but he is the father of Star Wars, they were fools to not get him to write this trilogy.

reply

Yes I agree. Lucas is a great story teller and a man with a very unique vision. I think he is just not the strongest script writer and not the best director. All that was needed was to take his story and characters get a good script editor to touch it up and put a competent director behind the camera. And for god's sake keep Lucas involved. The guy comes up with some really good visual imagery. It is the stuff that JJ tries to recreate anyway, so why not bring the pioneer on board.

reply

At last , we agree on something :)

reply

Lol, that is one thing about me, I am a reasonable person and if someone has a point that makes sense or even if they make a good argument I will both consider and respect it.

Typically I will become more harsh if someone makes an argument but does not provide good reasoning behind it. If I remember you correctly that might have been the cause of some of our 'miscommunication'.

reply

My money is still in my pocket. Worked for me.

reply

It is only a month ago that the movie came out and the theaters will be decreasing showings quite a bit by Friday. This isn't much of a win.

reply