The thing is I genuinely feel sorry for the people involved in making these films. Sure, they're professionals making serious money, but they're also human beings who have feelings and work damn hard to make something for people to dump all over and attack them personally
*Stories Anyway, this feels like a bit of an overreaction. Each movie is different. I think they could promote one better than the other. Maybe slow down, but not put on hold.
That's how I met her, she only reacts that way when there's a reason. A lot of people come across badly in these threads and there's a lot of innate sexism in the sci fi world which really shows in people's biases. Frankly I can't blame her and it's good to see people challenge it.
Good, because that would make you a liar too. I don't hate men. I hate pathetic little boys who try to ruin fandom because they didn't like a movie for dumb reasons. They may be 40 something year old losers, but they aren't men. Really claiming that any women criticizing a male for anything "hates men" is just bizarre. I assume that's based on their own experience with women. They're so repellant and disgusting due to their personality that women avoid them on instinct, so they just assume that these women hate all men instead of just them. But it is just them. I'm actually quite friendly to decent people. I only react negatively to garbage and bullshit, especially when it's affecting things I love like Star Trek and Star Wars.
No Obi-Wan or Vader movies really annoy me especially Obi-Wan due to a particular scene from Solo. Solo problems stemmed from a botched production that doubled the budget, non Christmas packed May release date and borderline suicidal marketing.
Disney has a habit of making great movies that bomb because of marketing. I maintain that John Carter was a good movie.
John Carter never had a chance to make back it's huge budget given the type of movie it was. That story was original when it was written. By the time it was filmed it was basically derivative of everything.
^Wow, that's kinda really stupid. ETA: Added quote, because I haven't read crookeddy's post yet and can't say wether it's stupid ot not
I agree about the budget. If this movie was budgeted at $150 million as it should have been it would probably end up profitable. At $250 million it needed to be a smash hit. EDIT: I think Christmas was always a no-go because Disney didn't want to compete with itself (Mary Poppins)
I wouldn't be surprised. We didn't even get a trailer until right before it was released. The other movies got them a year before.
Add to that the advertising costs and the Wikipedia page is saying Solo will have to clear $500 million just to become profitable. Reaching about $343 million this past weekend, it's no wonder the Mousketeers are getting their shorts in a bunch. I'm just not seeing $160 million in DVD sales for this one.
If this is report is verified I think it's a good move on Disney's part. From the moment I heard about the plan to do a Star Wars film every year I knew it would eventually tire the audience on Star Wars. It potentially has happened much sooner than I thought. Now Lucasfilm has less pressure to produce a film every year-perhaps-and can work on making Episode IX the best it can be, to remove any tarnish on the brand, due to Solo's failure. It will be interesting to see if the Johnson trilogy goes forward, as well as the other projects. My guess is that Disney will not go forward with Johnson's project due to how much of a lightning rod The Last Jedi and the director have become. The Game of Thrones guys or Favreau don't generate the same kind of ire and likely will get to continue. If they could find a way to do it budget-wise I think Star Wars anthology films for the streaming service could be a big draw.