• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Star Wars ep. VII ... Who's Hyped?

Early reviews are coming in now that the embargo has been lifted and it sounds like the movie is REALLY....REALLY GOOD. The gripes and complaints are very minor given what everyone expects or wants this movie to do. I'm reading "best Star Wars ever," and "best Star Wars since A New Hope and Empire" and mostly comments like that. Luckily it seems as if critics writing these early reviews are, for the most part, actively avoiding spoilers. Seem to me that JJ Abrams has really managed to tap into what made the original trilogy so magical. If he has indeed managed that, Disney will get their ROI. The thing I tend to see when movies of these types of genres are really good (especially critically), is that A LOT of people see it over and over while its in theaters, and talk to friends and family and URGE others to go. If this movie is that good, that is exactly what will happen.
 
I haven't been able to get it to load up, probably because of traffic, but this sounds like a neat little game. Basically, it sounds like you visit the link, put the code in the browser of your smart phone, and somehow your smart phone links up to your laptop or desktop, which your smart phone then becomes a lightsaber, which then you use to kill storm troopers on your desktop. :text-link:
 
Huey said:
I haven't been able to get it to load up, probably because of traffic, but this sounds like a neat little game. Basically, it sounds like you visit the link, put the code in the browser of your smart phone, and somehow your smart phone links up to your laptop or desktop, which your smart phone then becomes a lightsaber, which then you use to kill storm troopers on your desktop. :text-link:
Click to expand...

Ok, got it to load, but didn't play it for long. As long as I played, you could only deflect blasters, there really wasn't any fighting.
 
I don't have Disney XD, so I have had trouble getting an accurate schedule of Star Wars Rebels, but I just watched the last episode that recorded for me. It was the one where Ezra went to Lothal(sp) to search for his parents. The episode showed a a 14 or something year old, wanting to find his parents something really bad. Made me think about how they always talked about somebody being too old to be a jedi, and turning to the dark side. The only reason I am posting this, is because he kind of looks like Kylo Ren from the Force Awakens, and I wonder if they are going to cross market here. Wouldn't it make Rebels that much more interesting if it had the back story to the newest bad guy in the Star Wars Universe?
 
Star Wars: Rebels is considered part of the canonical timeline now. So I wouldn't put it past the creators. I'm not terribly familiar with the show and kids haven't really gotten into it all so I have no insight to offer.
 
The economics for a movie's financial success, in this category of popular flics, is very predictable based on the revenues two weeks after release. The financial modeling shows that in order for this investment and movie to be as successful as a similar investment in making 5 movies in separate franchises requires a huge - HUGE - return on this one movie.

You guys make it sound like nothing matters other than the cost of the LucasFilm takeover and the cost to produce the movie - it is always MUCH more complicated than that. For example, the movies "John Carter" and "Lone Ranger" both earned more at box office than they costs to produce, and both movies are estimated to have lost over $100M each. Huge failures.
 
I understand the economics behind making a movie, and understand there is more to it than just the cost of making the movie. Then again, I'm not the one that said this movie needed to make 11 billion in order for Disney to consider it successful.
 
Flint said:
The economics for a movie's financial success, in this category of popular flics, is very predictable based on the revenues two weeks after release. The financial modeling shows that in order for this investment and movie to be as successful as a similar investment in making 5 movies in separate franchises requires a huge - HUGE - return on this one movie.

You guys make it sound like nothing matters other than the cost of the LucasFilm takeover and the cost to produce the movie - it is always MUCH more complicated than that. For example, the movies "John Carter" and "Lone Ranger" both earned more at box office than they costs to produce, and both movies are estimated to have lost over $100M each. Huge failures.
Click to expand...
According to IMDB.com the Lone Ranger had an estimated budget of $215,000,000 and grossed just over $89,000,000 at the box office (USA). John Carter was even worse at ~$264,000,000 and ~$73,000,000 respectively. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that the international box office totals brought either of those films to anywhere near break even.

Regardless, it's pretty much a fact that no movie ever makes a profit. The accountants ensure that this is always the case. Which is why no investor (or actor etc.) should ever look for a cut of the profits, but rather the gross. There's exceptions I'm sure, but probably not very many.

Jeff
 
The my team at work is going to see this movie as part of our annual Holiday outing tomorrow. I am super stoked.
 
JeffMackwood said:
Flint said:
The economics for a movie's financial success, in this category of popular flics, is very predictable based on the revenues two weeks after release. The financial modeling shows that in order for this investment and movie to be as successful as a similar investment in making 5 movies in separate franchises requires a huge - HUGE - return on this one movie.

You guys make it sound like nothing matters other than the cost of the LucasFilm takeover and the cost to produce the movie - it is always MUCH more complicated than that. For example, the movies "John Carter" and "Lone Ranger" both earned more at box office than they costs to produce, and both movies are estimated to have lost over $100M each. Huge failures.
Click to expand...
According to IMDB.com the Lone Ranger had an estimated budget of $215,000,000 and grossed just over $89,000,000 at the box office (USA). John Carter was even worse at ~$264,000,000 and ~$73,000,000 respectively. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that the international box office totals brought either of those films to anywhere near break even.

Regardless, it's pretty much a fact that no movie ever makes a profit. The accountants ensure that this is always the case. Which is why no investor (or actor etc.) should ever look for a cut of the profits, but rather the gross. There's exceptions I'm sure, but probably not very many.

Jeff
Click to expand...

In world wide box office revenue, John Carter did just over $284M and Lone Ranger did over $260M:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

ALSO... and this is VERY important... only about 55% of the income from the sale of a movie ticket goes back to the theater... so, if a movie grosses $1B in ticket sales, about $550M goes to the studio, the rest covers the theaters' "nut" (or the operating expenses of the theater) and a small portion in operating income to the theater owners.

Disney has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing this movie, including turning national monuments into light sabers and unheard of army of social media marketers doing whatever it takes - all with massive amounts of command and control to ensure the image is maintained and we continue to think the franchise is classy.


This debate reminds me of the shock I have read on the older forum when someone would discover that the cost to manufacture a piece of audio gear was often less than 25% of the price it sold for. They could not comprehend why the manufacturer was ripping them off since they didn't understand all of the overhead costs of doing business.
 
Flint said:
JeffMackwood said:
Flint said:
The economics for a movie's financial success, in this category of popular flics, is very predictable based on the revenues two weeks after release. The financial modeling shows that in order for this investment and movie to be as successful as a similar investment in making 5 movies in separate franchises requires a huge - HUGE - return on this one movie.

You guys make it sound like nothing matters other than the cost of the LucasFilm takeover and the cost to produce the movie - it is always MUCH more complicated than that. For example, the movies "John Carter" and "Lone Ranger" both earned more at box office than they costs to produce, and both movies are estimated to have lost over $100M each. Huge failures.
Click to expand...
According to IMDB.com the Lone Ranger had an estimated budget of $215,000,000 and grossed just over $89,000,000 at the box office (USA). John Carter was even worse at ~$264,000,000 and ~$73,000,000 respectively. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that the international box office totals brought either of those films to anywhere near break even.

Regardless, it's pretty much a fact that no movie ever makes a profit. The accountants ensure that this is always the case. Which is why no investor (or actor etc.) should ever look for a cut of the profits, but rather the gross. There's exceptions I'm sure, but probably not very many.

Jeff
Click to expand...

In world wide box office revenue, John Carter did just over $284M and Lone Ranger did over $260M:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

ALSO... and this is VERY important... only about 55% of the income from the sale of a movie ticket goes back to the theater... so, if a movie grosses $1B in ticket sales, about $550M goes to the studio, the rest covers the theaters' "nut" (or the operating expenses of the theater) and a small portion in operating income to the theater owners.

Disney has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing this movie, including turning national monuments into light sabers and unheard of army of social media marketers doing whatever it takes - all with massive amounts of command and control to ensure the image is maintained and we continue to think the franchise is classy.


This debate reminds me of the shock I have read on the older forum when someone would discover that the cost to manufacture a piece of audio gear was often less than 25% of the price it sold for. They could not comprehend why the manufacturer was ripping them off since they didn't understand all of the overhead costs of doing business.
Click to expand...
Hence my statement that "I doubt that the international box office totals brought either of those films to anywhere near break even."

Flint, I'm afraid we are in violent agreement on this one!

:)

Jeff
 
JeffMackwood said:
Flint, I'm afraid we are in violent agreement on this one!

:)

Jeff
Click to expand...


I thought we had a pact to never agree on anything on this forum, ever... like EVER.

Damn!
 
Can two people have an agreement to never agree? Aren't they both in default from the beginning?
 
Towen7 said:
Can two people have an agreement to never agree? Aren't they both in default from the beginning?
Click to expand...
Point, set, match.

Well played!

Jeff
 
I don't understand all the economics of it, 1B in ticket sales by the end of year ok. But for one pic to make 11 Billion in a year, even if you throw in the merchandising sounds like an impossible goal, to me anyway.
 
TFA has a REAL shot to do $1B before year's end...Jurassic World hit it in 13 days and there are predictions TFA will do over $600M worldwide during its opening. I'm not so sure the movie/franchise and ALL of its tie-ins, licensing, media sales, and whatever else won't do $10-11B by the end of 2016. Ticket revenues alone could surpass $3B by the end of its theater run if this movie has any sort of "legs."
 
I'm gonna be pissed if the rumors that Vader is Lukes father and that Leah is Lukes sister I mean they liked kiss.....twice. But I sure hope they bring back the ewoks and Jar Jar cause for me they were just the best parts of the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top