|
Re: Rian Johnson to Create New "Star Wars" Universe Trilogy
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 13502689)
Except Howard's shoot wasn't done in a vacuum. The cast was already hired, the sets were already built, etc. It also likely doesn't factor in all the post production work. So while his "shoot" was that much, if he had been the director from the beginning, the cost still would've been higher than that.
Still, Disney/Lucasfilm may be considering the production issues the film faced when looking at how it performed and considering a sequel that (hopefully) wouldn't have a tumultuous a shoot. However, even factoring out the additional production costs, Solo didn't do great. It had a really low overall domestic gross, and did even worse worldwide. Rouge One grossed about $1 billion worldwide, Solo did about a third of that. https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/f...rs#tab=summary Also, the critical and audience reaction seems to collectively be, "meh." It's not generating much buzz or excitement that could help drive demand for a sequel. Austin Powers got a sequel based largely on how it did on home video, but while you may personally like Solo, it's not really generating any traction. There's also the perception that it was a bomb, so people aren't going to be primed to see the sequel, especially if they never got around to watching the first one. I meant that as a general question, video sale and rentals just aren't what they used to be. |
Re: Rian Johnson to Create New "Star Wars" Universe Trilogy
Originally Posted by RichC2
(Post 13502732)
How do you determine traction in this day and age? Austin Powers spurred rentals and DVD sales in the glory days of DVDs and Blockbuster. Solo is currently streaming on Netflix, and I don't think you can get the same sense of how it's doing as you could back in the day.
I meant that as a general question, video sale and rentals just aren't what they used to be. Personally, I was just going off my observations, the amount of discussions about it, excitement (or lack thereof) I've seen in the real world and online. There's not a lot of talk about it, discussion of it, etc. The last posts in the reviews thread is about people who were practically needled into watching it. There's no online petition to green-light a sequel that went viral and got a lot of clicks. People seem more interested in the Rogue One prequel TV series than anything about Solo. https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk...thread-22.html That's somewhat anecdotal though, so I was looking for something a little more firm and objective. One thing I thought of was the amount of user reviews on Rottentomates and IMDB. Not necessarily the scores, but just the number of reviews. On Rottentomatoes, Solo has about 40,000 user reviews right now. Rogue One has 100,000. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/solo_a_star_wars_story https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rog...tar_wars_story Now, one might say, "but Rogue One has been out longer." True, but at about 9 months after release, Rogue One had 95,000 reviews, so the bulk were within the first few months. https://web.archive.org/web/20170915...tar_wars_story Similar with IMDB. Solo has 200,000 users reviews, Rogue One has 460,000, and had 360,000 by nine months. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3778644/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3748528/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170831...tle/tt3748528/ So it just seems like a lot of people haven't seen it yet, and don't seem particularly inclined to see it. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.