Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
I remember people saying TFA had the best script ever...
I remember people saying TFA had the best script ever...
Solo: A Star Wars Story
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
And it had an outstanding script that resulted in the top grossing film in US box office history. So your sarcasm has failed a bit here...
And it had an outstanding script that resulted in the top grossing film in US box office history. So your sarcasm has failed a bit here...
Jaitea
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
Well everyone is entitled to their honest opinion
J
Well everyone is entitled to their honest opinion
J
cboath
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
Frankly, that list lost a lot of it's relevance around 1990, if not prior.
Any film from 1980 and prior got to add to their totals through multiple releases. Today, there are no re-releases short of a special weekend showing in select cities due to DVD/BR/etc. I think GWTW still retains the lead when inflation is factored in, but it was released over and over again between it's release and 1990.
Star Wars benefitted from this. I think it was released in 77, 79, 80, 82, and 97. Just think if we never got VHS or DVD how much the SE's would have pulled in from theaters. Now, where would SW stand on that all-time list if you could have had it on DVD in december of 77? It was still in it's original release at that point.
Frankly, that list lost a lot of it's relevance around 1990, if not prior.
Any film from 1980 and prior got to add to their totals through multiple releases. Today, there are no re-releases short of a special weekend showing in select cities due to DVD/BR/etc. I think GWTW still retains the lead when inflation is factored in, but it was released over and over again between it's release and 1990.
Star Wars benefitted from this. I think it was released in 77, 79, 80, 82, and 97. Just think if we never got VHS or DVD how much the SE's would have pulled in from theaters. Now, where would SW stand on that all-time list if you could have had it on DVD in december of 77? It was still in it's original release at that point.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
)
We can talk about how 3D and IMAX releases add to the gross, as well. The true test - for me, at least is how many butts were in the seats - and adjusting for inflation seems to be the best way to figure that out. Yes, going to the movies has changed quite a bit over the years - but, $$ are still what's counted - no matter how many releases - be it multiple releases in theaters, home video or what have you.
Movies like GWTW didn't benefit from wide releases like we have now - they relied on "roadshow engagements." Going to a movie was much more of an event - indoor movie screens have just about doubled in number from just 1988 (and I'm sure the leap from 1939 is even more staggering). GWTW was charging around double a normal ticket price and MGM was raking in amazing 70% of the box office. There is a little doubt this movie was a colossal. (...and I still haven't seen it
)We can talk about how 3D and IMAX releases add to the gross, as well. The true test - for me, at least is how many butts were in the seats - and adjusting for inflation seems to be the best way to figure that out. Yes, going to the movies has changed quite a bit over the years - but, $$ are still what's counted - no matter how many releases - be it multiple releases in theaters, home video or what have you.
cboath
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
The point is it was substantially easier to put butts in the seats prior to 1980-5. Movies started going wide release in the 40's and 50's and GWTW got released wide at that time, not in '39, but it had wide releases as well. They could justify the price too as it's what? 3-3.5 hours long? I'm not saying it doesn't fairly hold the ticket sales record or wherever it's spot is. Far from it. To be relevant and interesting as long as it has says tons.
Up through 2000-05 somewhere, i'd see many more movies in the theater than i do today. Even then, it was usually 8 months or more to the home release. Today you have lots of people skipping the theatrical release to wait for the home release. The average is time is 4 months now, possibly less. I think something earlier this year made the home jump around 2-2.5 months after the theatrical release. it's easier to wait. Even a great movie is hard to threaten a ticket sales mark simply due to that fact. GWTW and even SW benefitted greatly from the no-home market era. GWTW didn't even have to compete with TV - really - until it was nearly 21 years old. Just think how many more teen girls would've gone to see titanic if it wasn't going to make it to the video store in the next 5 years after it was released. You could put out the greatest movie ever made today, and it's ticket sales would probably pale in comparison to that list, because it wouldn't get the repeat business it did in the past.
It's kind of like trying to compare the 1948 dodgers to the 2014 dodgers ( have no clue how good either was) - it's different eras, played different ways, by very different athletes. There's no longer a fair comparison for that.
The business types like to talk profit all day long, but i find it interesting they stop tracking sales figures (publicly at least) when the theatrical run is done. It's as if they don't want people knowing how much they rake in off home video sales.
Movies like GWTW didn't benefit from wide releases like we have now - they relied on "roadshow engagements." Going to a movie was much more of an event - indoor movie screens have just about doubled in number from just 1988 (and I'm sure the leap from 1939 is even more staggering). GWTW was charging around double a normal ticket price and MGM was raking in amazing 70% of the box office. There is a little doubt this movie was a colossal. (...and I still haven't seen it
We can talk about how 3D and IMAX releases add to the gross, as well. The true test - for me, at least is how many butts were in the seats - and adjusting for inflation seems to be the best way to figure that out. Yes, going to the movies has changed quite a bit over the years - but, $$ are still what's counted - no matter how many releases - be it multiple releases in theaters, home video or what have you.
The point is it was substantially easier to put butts in the seats prior to 1980-5. Movies started going wide release in the 40's and 50's and GWTW got released wide at that time, not in '39, but it had wide releases as well. They could justify the price too as it's what? 3-3.5 hours long? I'm not saying it doesn't fairly hold the ticket sales record or wherever it's spot is. Far from it. To be relevant and interesting as long as it has says tons.
Up through 2000-05 somewhere, i'd see many more movies in the theater than i do today. Even then, it was usually 8 months or more to the home release. Today you have lots of people skipping the theatrical release to wait for the home release. The average is time is 4 months now, possibly less. I think something earlier this year made the home jump around 2-2.5 months after the theatrical release. it's easier to wait. Even a great movie is hard to threaten a ticket sales mark simply due to that fact. GWTW and even SW benefitted greatly from the no-home market era. GWTW didn't even have to compete with TV - really - until it was nearly 21 years old. Just think how many more teen girls would've gone to see titanic if it wasn't going to make it to the video store in the next 5 years after it was released. You could put out the greatest movie ever made today, and it's ticket sales would probably pale in comparison to that list, because it wouldn't get the repeat business it did in the past.
It's kind of like trying to compare the 1948 dodgers to the 2014 dodgers ( have no clue how good either was) - it's different eras, played different ways, by very different athletes. There's no longer a fair comparison for that.
The business types like to talk profit all day long, but i find it interesting they stop tracking sales figures (publicly at least) when the theatrical run is done. It's as if they don't want people knowing how much they rake in off home video sales.
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
GWTW played to an underserved (some would say flat-out neglected) audience - the deep south. That helped boost its numbers. The 1930s wasn't as far removed from the Civil War itself as modern times. Many people/places in the deep south basically viewed themselves as a conquered country in those days. GWTW was a rare piece of media that portrayed their cause in a positive romantic light. It struck a big chord with a lot of people.
The 1950s moonshine car chase flick Thunder Road was still showing up in rural southern theaters for decades after it came out. Another case of playing to that underserved audience.
And if we're going to talk about all-time box office, we can't ignore The Sound of Music. It sold a lot more tickets than Phillip K. Dick ever has.
GWTW played to an underserved (some would say flat-out neglected) audience - the deep south. That helped boost its numbers. The 1930s wasn't as far removed from the Civil War itself as modern times. Many people/places in the deep south basically viewed themselves as a conquered country in those days. GWTW was a rare piece of media that portrayed their cause in a positive romantic light. It struck a big chord with a lot of people.
The 1950s moonshine car chase flick Thunder Road was still showing up in rural southern theaters for decades after it came out. Another case of playing to that underserved audience.
And if we're going to talk about all-time box office, we can't ignore The Sound of Music. It sold a lot more tickets than Phillip K. Dick ever has.
Last edited:
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
I wasn't being sarcastic one bit. I was stating my opinion that people (Ford, JJ, etc.) said how great the script was and it was just ANH 2.0. As for the box office, the Prequels all broke records on release and a lot of people hate them now. My guess is that TFA won't stand the test of time and people will figure out it was average in 5-10 years after the novelty wears off.
I wasn't being sarcastic one bit. I was stating my opinion that people (Ford, JJ, etc.) said how great the script was and it was just ANH 2.0. As for the box office, the Prequels all broke records on release and a lot of people hate them now. My guess is that TFA won't stand the test of time and people will figure out it was average in 5-10 years after the novelty wears off.
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
Maybe you missed the part where movie screens have just about doubled since 1988. Your point is moot as it is now easier to see a movie as there vastly more movie theaters now than there were just 20 years ago - and while I don't have the numbers, I'm sure the jump from '39-'88 is just as dramatic. TFA opened in 4,134 theaters, the #1 movie of 1988 opened in just 1,248 (the next year, Batman opened in 2,194).
I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that movie released today is much more available to a attend in a theater - one might even liken this wide release to the re-releases you mention if you consider seats available.
The original Star Wars had a 44 week run (starting with 43 theaters, peaking with 1,096) from May 25, 1977 through August 26, 1979 - TFA did just 24 weeks (4,134 theaters) and had a not too dissimilar gross (adjusting for inflation, of course).
Box Office Mojo shows us two SW re-releases...
The 1982 re-release of SW was out for 5 weeks and did just over $15 million.
The 1997 Special Edition was out for 8 weeks and did just over $138 million. (I think it stands to reason this is not a normal re-release by any reckoning).
Likewise ESB.
The 1982 re-release was out for 5 weeks and did just over $13 million.
The 1997 Special Edition was out for 5 weeks and did just over $67.5 million. (again, not a "normal" re-release)
It's obvious that these movies added to their gross in re-release. Outside of the Special Editions - which I think are obvious "different animals" altogether - the additional gross wasn't really that huge - the 1982 SW re-release was #50 that year, the 1982 ESB was #57.
With GWTW, Box Office Mojo lists three releases - the original 1939 release ($189.5 million) 1989 ($2.4 million) and 1998 ($6.75 million). Wikipedia also lists re-releases in 1942 (not listed in the top 145 grossing movies), 1947 (not in the top 20), 1954 (not in the top 50), 1961 (not in the top 14), 1967 (not in the top 25), 1971, 1974 and 2014 - that's obviously a lot more releases and the money from these releases obviously added up (and more homework about being in the top grossing movies of that year than I cared to continue with... lol).
Here's an even better way (at least for me) to look at it...
The US population in 1939 was 130,879,718
The US population in 1977 was 220,239,425.
The US population in 2016 is 322,762,018.
GWTW has sold an estimated 202,044,600 tickets (#1).
Star Wars has sold an estimated 178,119,600 tickets (#2).
TFA has sold an estimated 108,120,000 (#11).
It's estimated that GWTW sold 60 million tickets its first year of release - meaning almost half the population of the US saw it (another source is suggesting that the 60m figure may've been over GWTW "initial" 4 year run - either way based on population, it is impressive).
What does all this mean? I don't know - it will mean different things to different people. Somewhere I got into fact-finding mode and got carried away... it's really fascinating and horrifying at the same time . I think, and it really pains me to say this, that GWTW is just as much a behemoth as SW or even (shudder) Avatar or Titanic. Its numbers are HUGE - more butts in seat than any other film in an era when the population was much lower and theaters were scarcer.
Did re-release of movies add to their totals? Sure. But, I don't think it's nearly factor that Cboath implies (outside of the Star Wars SEs - which fall out of his timeline, anyhow).
Just to reiterate, what it all boils down to for me: GWTW's numbers are HUGE - more butts in seat than any other film in an era when the population was much lower and theaters were scarcer. It was a different era, with multiple releases, fewer movie releases, not nearly the entertainment-on-demand society we are now.
We compare movies just like we compare those baseball teams - were they Champions, did they win games? The 1935 Detroit Tigers won the World Series and had a .616 winning percent - the 2015 Tigers didn't go to the World Series and had a winning percent of .460. Just like the movies certain things will standout - performances, scripts, homerun hitters and golden gloves.
Anyway you look at it, no matter how much money it earns, will I think Avatar deserves it. I can rationalize Titantic to a point... but, Avatar? Nope. The totals ultimately mean the to those financing and producing movies - and it eventually shapes the movies that come out next.
Sorry for the long, rambling post.
Maybe you missed the part where movie screens have just about doubled since 1988. Your point is moot as it is now easier to see a movie as there vastly more movie theaters now than there were just 20 years ago - and while I don't have the numbers, I'm sure the jump from '39-'88 is just as dramatic. TFA opened in 4,134 theaters, the #1 movie of 1988 opened in just 1,248 (the next year, Batman opened in 2,194).
I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that movie released today is much more available to a attend in a theater - one might even liken this wide release to the re-releases you mention if you consider seats available.
The original Star Wars had a 44 week run (starting with 43 theaters, peaking with 1,096) from May 25, 1977 through August 26, 1979 - TFA did just 24 weeks (4,134 theaters) and had a not too dissimilar gross (adjusting for inflation, of course).
Box Office Mojo shows us two SW re-releases...
The 1982 re-release of SW was out for 5 weeks and did just over $15 million.
The 1997 Special Edition was out for 8 weeks and did just over $138 million. (I think it stands to reason this is not a normal re-release by any reckoning).
Likewise ESB.
The 1982 re-release was out for 5 weeks and did just over $13 million.
The 1997 Special Edition was out for 5 weeks and did just over $67.5 million. (again, not a "normal" re-release)
It's obvious that these movies added to their gross in re-release. Outside of the Special Editions - which I think are obvious "different animals" altogether - the additional gross wasn't really that huge - the 1982 SW re-release was #50 that year, the 1982 ESB was #57.
With GWTW, Box Office Mojo lists three releases - the original 1939 release ($189.5 million) 1989 ($2.4 million) and 1998 ($6.75 million). Wikipedia also lists re-releases in 1942 (not listed in the top 145 grossing movies), 1947 (not in the top 20), 1954 (not in the top 50), 1961 (not in the top 14), 1967 (not in the top 25), 1971, 1974 and 2014 - that's obviously a lot more releases and the money from these releases obviously added up (and more homework about being in the top grossing movies of that year than I cared to continue with... lol).
Here's an even better way (at least for me) to look at it...
The US population in 1939 was 130,879,718
The US population in 1977 was 220,239,425.
The US population in 2016 is 322,762,018.
GWTW has sold an estimated 202,044,600 tickets (#1).
Star Wars has sold an estimated 178,119,600 tickets (#2).
TFA has sold an estimated 108,120,000 (#11).
It's estimated that GWTW sold 60 million tickets its first year of release - meaning almost half the population of the US saw it (another source is suggesting that the 60m figure may've been over GWTW "initial" 4 year run - either way based on population, it is impressive).
What does all this mean? I don't know - it will mean different things to different people. Somewhere I got into fact-finding mode and got carried away... it's really fascinating and horrifying at the same time
. I think, and it really pains me to say this, that GWTW is just as much a behemoth as SW or even (shudder) Avatar or Titanic. Its numbers are HUGE - more butts in seat than any other film in an era when the population was much lower and theaters were scarcer.Did re-release of movies add to their totals? Sure. But, I don't think it's nearly factor that Cboath implies (outside of the Star Wars SEs - which fall out of his timeline, anyhow).
Just to reiterate, what it all boils down to for me: GWTW's numbers are HUGE - more butts in seat than any other film in an era when the population was much lower and theaters were scarcer. It was a different era, with multiple releases, fewer movie releases, not nearly the entertainment-on-demand society we are now.
We compare movies just like we compare those baseball teams - were they Champions, did they win games? The 1935 Detroit Tigers won the World Series and had a .616 winning percent - the 2015 Tigers didn't go to the World Series and had a winning percent of .460. Just like the movies certain things will standout - performances, scripts, homerun hitters and golden gloves.
Anyway you look at it, no matter how much money it earns, will I think Avatar deserves it. I can rationalize Titantic to a point... but, Avatar? Nope. The totals ultimately mean the to those financing and producing movies - and it eventually shapes the movies that come out next.
Sorry for the long, rambling post.
Last edited:
JD
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
Home video sales are tracked, too... although it's not nearly as easy to follow as the Box Office. It's a bit skewed because it looks like it still all separated by DVD, BR and internet/digital sales. I also believe that each copy of the movie counts - if you bought TFA on BR and you received the BR, DVD and digital download that would count as 3 units sold.
TFA has nearly 7 million/$126.69 million in BRs sold. Whereas, GWTW has sold around 5 million DVD/BR sales... can't find anything on downloads.
Home video isn't part of the Box Office take. It's a similar, yet different animal altogether. Different costs, different systems, different promotions, etc. Some movies have had new life on home video - and sequels have been made due to strength on the home market.
Home video sales are tracked, too... although it's not nearly as easy to follow as the Box Office. It's a bit skewed because it looks like it still all separated by DVD, BR and internet/digital sales. I also believe that each copy of the movie counts - if you bought TFA on BR and you received the BR, DVD and digital download that would count as 3 units sold.
TFA has nearly 7 million/$126.69 million in BRs sold. Whereas, GWTW has sold around 5 million DVD/BR sales... can't find anything on downloads.
therethere
Active Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
I'll reserve judgement, but at the moment this seems to a be a disaster of an idea. That being said, I think that Alden Ehrenreich will make a great young Han Solo - not a young Harrison Ford but a great young Han Solo. He was a scene stealer in Hail Caesar, he has obvious charisma, he has a roguish look and it's a new story that we haven't seen before. A new untested, unjaded Solo. Not defending this thing but let's not rip this poor guy for his height or exact Ford likeness - how similar has Chewbacca looked between films and hey, Mark Hamill (I know 'the' accident) - who recognized him when they first saw him in Empire (still haven't gotten over that one). This seems sad, mean & kind of petty. I like Alden as an actor. He's solid and that's a great start. These films need solid "actors" not stand-ins. Jake Lloyd or Hayden Christensen anyone?
I'll reserve judgement, but at the moment this seems to a be a disaster of an idea. That being said, I think that Alden Ehrenreich will make a great young Han Solo - not a young Harrison Ford but a great young Han Solo. He was a scene stealer in Hail Caesar, he has obvious charisma, he has a roguish look and it's a new story that we haven't seen before. A new untested, unjaded Solo. Not defending this thing but let's not rip this poor guy for his height or exact Ford likeness - how similar has Chewbacca looked between films and hey, Mark Hamill (I know 'the' accident) - who recognized him when they first saw him in Empire (still haven't gotten over that one). This seems sad, mean & kind of petty. I like Alden as an actor. He's solid and that's a great start. These films need solid "actors" not stand-ins. Jake Lloyd or Hayden Christensen anyone?
Last edited:
Wolfsburg
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Anthology (Young Han Solo)
Yeah, some are making such a big thing of it but it's frankly just not that big a deal to me. I too would've rather it not been quite so similar to ANH and think it's a valid criticism, but there are far worse things they could've done.
Yeah, some are making such a big thing of it but it's frankly just not that big a deal to me. I too would've rather it not been quite so similar to ANH and think it's a valid criticism, but there are far worse things they could've done.
Last edited:
Similar threads
