Rumors that Disney is in negotiations to sell Star Wars back to George Lucas!

[nancipants]

Afterlife was fine. The main girl in it was great, but otherwise, I didn't find it anything special. Also they made Egon out to be a huge jerk. The "fan service" at the end made me roll my eyes so hard.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Hope they don't sell.

Even though I feel they course corrected back (or tried anyway) in TROS (from TLJ), I/We have been blessed with way more content than we would otherwise have had.

Really been enjoying this thread and it's opinions. Never thought about some of these, good fun IMO.

I do feel the conversation on being born more force sensitive than others is very interesting. It doesn't appear to be completely or at least clearly answered in the SW Universe-unless I missed it.

But it does seem that Disney clearly felt they needed to make Rey have Force lineage in TROS, after TLJ tried to show she didn't.

What other explanation is there?

Bingo!

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I don't know that Maverick passed the baton - it was basically a gush-fesh about how great Maverick is and how the young kids just don't know anything and he can school them all, all the time, forever. They will NEVER be as good as him. I guess that's what all the Luke fans wanted, and nothing more.

Afterlife did handle it a bit better, but it was almost too much nostalgia/easter eggs. It also did well enough, but was not a huge hit. Top Gun definitely was.

Afterlife made money after the 2016 version lost approximately $70 million. 2016 was also universally hated by the fans with a 49% audience score on rotten tomatoes, where Afterlife was loved by fans with a 94% audience score. Afterlife was a massive turnaround story from a franchise perspective, that was essentially dead after 2016. So much so, that Afterlife is getting its own sequel to be set back in NYC. I just don't understand how you cannot say Afterlife was way more successful than the 2016 movie.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Afterlife was fine. The main girl in it was great, but otherwise, I didn't find it anything special. Also they made Egon out to be a huge jerk. The "fan service" at the end made me roll my eyes so hard.

I thought all the kids did a great job. Especially loved the Asian kid "Podcast". The mother to children dynamic was also great and real feelng, and even heart-warming at the end.

 

[BrianL]

Afterlife made money after the 2016 version lost approximately $70 million. 2016 was also universally hated by the fans. It was a massive turnaround story from a franchise perspective, that was essentially dead. So much so, that it is getting its own sequel to be set back in NYC. I just don't understand how you cannot say Afterlife was way more successful than the 2016 movie.

Oh, it was certainly more successful than the previous attempt and it was a successful film overall. On a $75M budget (probably $100 after P&A), it made about $204M. So it did fine, just not amazingly. Maverick on the other hand made $1.4 Billion! The two just aren't comparble.

 

[nancipants]

I liked GB2016 more than Afterlife, but then again I'm not a huge GB fan.

 

[BrianL]

I liked GB2016 more than Afterlife, but then again I'm not a huge GB fan.

Wow, now there's a hot take! Still, you know, you do you.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I liked GB2016 more than Afterlife, but then again I'm not a huge GB fan.

Holy hot take Batman!

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Oh, it was certainly more successful than the previous attempt and it was a successful film overall. On a $75M budget (probably $100 after P&A), it made about $204M. So it did fine, just not amazingly. Maverick on the other hand made $1.4 Billion! The two just aren't comparble.

I didn't say they were comparable. I said they were both successful at respecting legacy characters and telling a new story with new characters added in. The also both were financially successful.

Compared to the 2016 movie, Afterlife likely is one the biggest box office turnarounds after a flop in cinematic history. What like around a $80 million dollar turnaround, not including resurrecting the franchise from a merchandising standpoint as well.

 

[BrianL]

I didn't say they were comparable. I said they were both successful at respecting legacy characters and telling a new story with new characters added in. The also both were financially successful.

Compared to the 2016 movie, Afterlife likely is one the biggest box office turnarounds after a flop in cinematic history. What like around a $80 million dollar turnaround, not including resurrecting the franchise from a merchandising standpoint as well.

Well, for what it's worth, GB 2016 made $216M, so that's more than Afterlife. Teh budget though was $175M, so significantly higher. It was also pre-covid, and Afterlife was still dealing with that mess a little.

 

[nancipants]

Holy hot take Batman!

I mean, it has Chris Hemsworth as a secretary, so they got me right there.

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

I didn't say they were comparable. I said they were both successful at respecting legacy characters and telling a new story with new characters added in. The also both were financially successful.

Compared to the 2016 movie, Afterlife likely is one the biggest box office turnarounds after a flop in cinematic history. What like around a $80 million dollar turnaround, not including resurrecting the franchise from a merchandising standpoint as well.

i wonder if GB fans were treating them like they were the same franchise or not. If they looked at afterlife like a complete relaunch and just ignored 2016. Personally i don't view them as the same franchise, and i haven't even seen afterlife, so that was probably helpful

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Well, for what it's worth, GB 2016 made $216M, so that's more than Afterlife. Teh budget though was $175M, so significantly higher. It was also pre-covid, and Afterlife was still dealing with that mess a little.

Well I am talking about total financial performance as in total sales minus total expenses. Based on that one made about $10 million and the other lost about $70 million. I know which one I chose if I am the studio executive.

 

[BrianL]

i wonder if GB fans were treating them like they were the same franchise or not. If they looked at afterlife like a complete relaunch and just ignored 2016. Personally i don't view them as the same franchise, and i haven't even seen afterlife, so that was probably helpful

The 2016 version is a reboot that officially takes place in an alternate universe. In some comic books they did have crossovers witht he ever-popular multiverse with the main continuity, the reboot, The REAL Ghostbusters and even Extreme GBs too!

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

The 2016 version is a reboot that officially takes place in an alternate universe. In some comic books they did have crossovers witht he ever-popular multiverse with the main continuity, the reboot, The REAL Ghostbusters and even Extreme GBs too!

I think they were very smart to say the 2016 one was in an alternate universe. I bet they wish they could have the $70 million dollar financial loss in another universe as well!

 

[jade1]

crossovers witht he ever-popular multiverse

Not to hijack but would love to here opinions on this.

I'm on board currently, esp after the Spidermen-but wondering where it will all shake out.

Batmen.

Ironmen.

But hey maybe a real man Luke Skywalker is out there not projecting from his cave.

 

[BrianL]

Not to hijack but would love to here opinions on this.

I'm on board currently, esp after the Spidermen-but wondering where it will all shake out.

Batmen.

Ironmen.

But hey maybe a real man Luke Skywalker is out there not projecting from his cave.

Well, there are at least two Batmen in The Flash.

Honestly, I think this multiverse stuff is overblown. It works okay in comic books becuase they are a little...well...unique. Those "Elseworlds" style stories work best when they don't crossover with the main universe.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I have heard some rumblings that Marvel is considering bringing back Iron Man, with a second snap. No idea if that is true, but certainly know the current phase of Marvel is not capturing the box office, like the Marvel films of years ago.

Captain Marvel is just not very likable as the leader of the Avengers imho, like they were planning on doing. We had so much time with Iron Man and had seen his entire character arc, so he was a natural leader of the team. Captain Marvel needs a lot more screen time and character development, if people are going to buy into her as the leader of the Avengers. She just seems like a way overpowered character to me (aka Superman) with little to no weaknesses or faults.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

I do agree with Brian though that the multiverse stuff is tricky to pull off in movies. Hard to have real risk in a movie, when the average viewer is confused about what universe you are in at that moment.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Not to hijack but would love to here opinions on this.

I'm on board currently, esp after the Spidermen-but wondering where it will all shake out.

Batmen. (DC will reboot this pretty soon, hard to imagine DC movies without their cash cow Batman)

Ironmen. (Rumors, but who knows?)

But hey maybe a real man Luke Skywalker is out there not projecting from his cave. (Not gonna happen, the plan was / is to kill the past to make room for the new characters to be adored like Luke once was) (Also, based on his recent interviews I don't think Mark Hamill really has any interest in being involved with the character any more). (I think Luke is done, and I am not so sure it's a bad thing).