The Rise of Skywalker Star Wars IX Box Office Thread

[Lilbaz]

I don't think the general public knows anything about Darth Revan or The Old Republic, nor would they care if Keanu Reeves dons a Mandalorian helmet. This prediction sounds like wishful fanboy thinking.

Agree. The director and writers will want to make their own story. If they call the lead revan it might attract some fans but will probably piss them off that the story/character is different. Easier to just start from scratch.

 

[dataSlave]

Disney got Lucasfilm for a steal, and theyve already made back $4 billion from Star Wars. They paid over $5 billion for Pixar and Marvel, each. So Disney could have and would have paid more for Lucasfilm and been perfectly fine as a result.

They are still in the hole. Disney isn't close to break even on the deal after 8 years. It was a very poor use of capital compared to the simplest of alternatives. Companies buy back their own stock quite regularly. Had Disney bought back stock with the $4.1 billion instead of buying Lucasfilm they would be way ahead of where they are today. Those 80 million shares would be worth $11.6 billion now and Disney would have saved close to $1 billion in dividends paid on those shares since 2012. That $12.6 billion is a lot more than the alternative use of buying the SW franchise.

 

[samsnee]

Im pretty sure it wont happen but we will talk about it when we have some trailers.
SW has hearch its max height.

I agree with you. TFA had the return of Han and Leia. I highly doubt the return of Rey, Finn, and Poe in 20 years will be as exciting.

 

[writer0327]

Compared to Disney's other big branches (Marvel, Pixar, and Disney Animation), Lucasfilm has proven itself to be far less sustainable for long term consistent profitability. That doesn't mean it'll be completely abandoned as a blockbuster movie franchise or anything, but Lucasfilm has wasted its potential to join the ranks of Disney's major pillars.

The reason the big three are so consistenty huge is because they are consistent at giving their audience what they want and expect. People know what they're getting when they go to a Marvel, Disney Animation, or Pixar film, and that allows hype to build even without the need for active marketing. But Lucasfilm refused to be...predictable like this. Particularly with TLJ. Regardless of what you think of TLJ from an artistic standpoint, you have to admit it's a bad idea from a business standpoint to suddenly overhaul the menu when you have people lining up in droves for what you were already serving.

Lucasfilm is SW and Indiana Jones, and mainly SW, a franchise whose fans place an enormous amount of stock in 3 films made 40 years ago. Their lot is not as easy as it sounds. Pixar and Marvel can expand into any area they wish, they have literally have no barriers, dozens of creative properties to use anyway they wish. If LFL wants to join the ranks of Marvel and Pixar they need to open up their creative output to more than Star Wars.

 

[BatLobster]

Lucasfilm is SW and Indiana Jones, and mainly SW, a franchise whose fans place an enormous amount of stock in 3 films made 40 years ago. Their lot is not as easy as it sounds. Pixar and Marvel can expand into any area they wish, they have literally have no barriers, dozens of creative properties to use anyway they wish. If LFL wants to join the ranks of Marvel and Pixar they need to open up their creative output to more than Star Wars.

Yeah. I think one solution to the whole "Rian Johnson trilogy" thing could be, let him (or someone else) come up with a pitch for a brand new franchise that fits in line with the Lucasfilm brand of storytelling while opening it up. Could be sci-fi/fantasy, but something that is distinct from Star Wars in some significant way.

Kind of like what Bungie did with Destiny. It still feels like it was made by the people who made Halo, but it proved that as a studio they were more than just Halo. It would be great to see Lucasfilm do something like that and get back to the innovation that put them on the map in the first place.

At the moment though, it still seems like Disney is mostly viewing them as a Star Wars-making factory. And unfortunately big budget original ideas don't often fare well in the current climate.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Lucasfilm is SW and Indiana Jones, and mainly SW, a franchise whose fans place an enormous amount of stock in 3 films made 40 years ago. Their lot is not as easy as it sounds. Pixar and Marvel can expand into any area they wish, they have literally have no barriers, dozens of creative properties to use anyway they wish. If LFL wants to join the ranks of Marvel and Pixar they need to open up their creative output to more than Star Wars.

Is there anything stopping Lucasfilm from branching out from Star Wars if they wanted to? I don't think there is, but if so, then that's a bigger problem.

Also I think you are understating the barriers that the other studios are working within. Pixar, Disney Animation, and Marvel Studios all have a certain style, feel, and general formula that allows people to know what to expect. There's no reason Lucasfilm can't give people what they want and expect with a winning formula while also branching out from Star Wars with other adventure stories in a similar vein, rather than sticking strictly with Star Wars while contorting the brand to the whims of every new director that comes along. I'm not saying it would be easy to make this adjustment, but I'm sure it wasn't easy for the other studios either, and if Lucasfilm wants to compete with the big boys then it needs to step up its game.

 

[BatLobster]

I think it comes down to what Disney allows. IPs are king right now, and they may just simply want Lucasfilm to continue focusing their efforts on mostly Star Wars content for the time being. I mean, Disney's been burned with big ambitious projects before *cough John Carter*. And technically, even that was an IP.

I do hope we get to a point where Lucasfilm can branch out though. I think it'd be very healthy for the brand. It's tricky though, because nostalgia is pretty baked-in to what they do. Like even Star Wars and Indiana Jones are riffing on old adventure serials, and that was part of the original appeal. And mind you, if coming up with the next Indiana Jones or Star Wars was easy, we would've seen it decades ago.

 

[writer0327]

Is there anything stopping Lucasfilm from branching out from Star Wars if they wanted to? I don't think there is, but if so, then that's a bigger problem.

Also I think you are understating the barriers that the other studios are working within. Pixar, Disney Animation, and Marvel Studios all have a certain style, feel, and general formula that allows people to know what to expect. There's no reason Lucasfilm can't give people what they want and expect with a winning formula while also branching out from Star Wars with other adventure stories in a similar vein, rather than sticking strictly with Star Wars while contorting the brand to the whims of every new director that comes along. I'm not saying it would be easy to make this adjustment, but I'm sure it wasn't easy for the other studios either, and if Lucasfilm wants to compete with the big boys then it needs to step up its game.

It comes down to this: does LFL wish to give in to the studio system format, or keep with the philosophy of its founder? I think the studio system will ultimately win out, because this is a business after all, but it's opposite to what George Lucas stood for. He was a maverick filmmaker that refused to follow the Hollywood formula and believed in making the films he wanted to make. But Disney certainly isn't that.

LFL needs to take risks, albeit calculated ones. There's nothing stopping this except the same problems that confront other studios. Everyone says Hollywood is creatively bereft of ideas and LFL would need to essentially double down on that. They own properties (SW, Indy) that fans want specifically want done a certain way and may not accept creative expansion. This is where a "story group" could be of some use and actually scour the world for creative minds and stories who are building new worlds, instead of sticking with the same old, same old.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Looks like actuals came in a skosh higher.

 

[jmc]

Let’s be honest, Disney purchased Lucasfilm for Star Wars. In a perfect world they would allow Kennedy and her team the luxury of becoming the serial adventure arm of the company, generating new properties that fit into the same style of adventure as SW and Indy. But they won’t be allowed to, nor do I think Lucasfilm is structured in a way to handle it. Because I don’t think anyone over there is actually sure what it is they are doing. I mean that literally, I don’t think Lucasfilm has a grasp about what exactly they are suppose to be as a company now.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

Just for reference...
The number crunchers over at BOT think the final domestic total will land in the 506-517 range, which would put it at 14 just aft of Rogue One.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[Marvolo]

They are still in the hole. Disney isn't close to break even on the deal after 8 years. It was a very poor use of capital compared to the simplest of alternatives. Companies buy back their own stock quite regularly. Had Disney bought back stock with the $4.1 billion instead of buying Lucasfilm they would be way ahead of where they are today. Those 80 million shares would be worth $11.6 billion now and Disney would have saved close to $1 billion in dividends paid on those shares since 2012. That $12.6 billion is a lot more than the alternative use of buying the SW franchise.

Disney bought Lucasfilm six years ago today and has already recouped its $4 billion investment

 

[Stark Bauer]

It comes down to this: does LFL wish to give in to the studio system format, or keep with the philosophy of its founder? I think the studio system will ultimately win out, because this is a business after all, but it's opposite to what George Lucas stood for. He was a maverick filmmaker that refused to follow the Hollywood formula and believed in making the films he wanted to make. But Disney certainly isn't that.

LFL needs to take risks, albeit calculated ones. There's nothing stopping this except the same problems that confront other studios. Everyone says Hollywood is creatively bereft of ideas and LFL would need to essentially double down on that. They own properties (SW, Indy) that fans want specifically want done a certain way and may not accept creative expansion. This is where a "story group" could be of some use and actually scour the world for creative minds and stories who are building new worlds, instead of sticking with the same old, same old.

I would argue that they did take a risk by killing Han Luke and Leia, by giving Anakin’s sacrifice, the Skywalker family, and the fandom a big middle finger and pandered to SJWs instead of focusing on the male dominated audience

 

[TheVileOne]

Find it hard to believe Disney is losing money on Star Wars/Lucasfilm when you have all those ancillary markets. That'd have to be some bad money management and Hollywood accounting if that's the case. I'd need to see the spreadsheets to believe it.

 

[Zarex]

The idea that the Mouse's acquisition of Lucasfilm was a bad investment is pure foolishness given the returns the company has already realized from the BO, streaming, licensing, animation, theme parks, etc. If Iger put the property on the market tomorrow he would get 11 figure bids from multiple parties.

A few years back former Viacom CEO Phillippe Dauman chose to invest billions in stock buybacks rather than growing the company. It was a stupid plan that cratered the company stock and ultimately cost him his job.

 

[dataSlave]

Disney bought Lucasfilm six years ago today and has already recouped its $4 billion investment

That article is riddled with errors from beginning to end. The cost is not a one-time static price. The shares they gave away continue to become more valuable and have tripled in price since the deal was struck. Disney continues to pay dividends on that stock and will do so to the tune of $70 million and growing each year. Cost is well north of $8 billion now, not counting interest on the cash portion of the deal.

The movies have done $5.6 billion gross at the box office. Disney gets half or $2.8 billion. Production cost for those 5 movies is $1.27 billion per Star Wars Franchise Box Office History - The Numbers which leaves $1.53 billion. Deduct a conservative 50% of production budget for marketing and the movies netted less than $1 billion for Disney. In most cases marketing is closer to 80% of production cost.

 

[dataSlave]

The idea that the Mouse's acquisition of Lucasfilm was a bad investment is pure foolishness given the returns the company has already realized from the BO, streaming, licensing, animation, theme parks, etc. If Iger put the property on the market tomorrow he would get 11 figure bids from multiple parties.

A few years back former Viacom CEO Phillippe Dauman chose to invest billions in stock buybacks rather than growing the company. It was a stupid plan that cratered the company stock and ultimately cost him his job.

Streaming isn't going to be a major profit center for the foreseeable future. Netflix has much greater economies of scale than Disney and makes about $0.50 per month from each subscriber. While Disney owns its own IP, they will also be cannibalizing existing revenue streams to some extent. Streaming is replacing DVD and cable subscription revenue. It's more a shift in how people watch and pay for video than something new. Even then, SW as a whole will only account for a fraction of Disney's streaming and the ST movies will only account for a fraction of that fraction. Given audience reception, I would guess that The Mandalorian will have more value to the streaming division in the next 5 years than all of the ST movies combined.

As for Viacom, their failure had zero to do with stock buybacks. Most of the great companies buy back stock routinely once their hyper-growth phase is finished. Citing one bad company that did the same thing isn't dispositive. Heck, Disney itself spends $1 billion to $2 billion dollars every quarter buying back stock. That's the majority of their corporate profits.

 

[jmc]

Speaking of Disney Plus, I did the 7 day free trial. Other than Mandalorian the service is almost exactly what I anticipated. Nothing but stuff everybody owns already, and filled with old crap nobody cares for. Not to mention some of the digital transfers are of a terrible quality. Once you breeze through the Mandalorian there is little to actually watch. They needed at least 3 Star Wars shows and 2 Marvel shows ready for launch for this thing to be worth while. Lack of innovation is ultimately going to be Disney's downfall in the streaming landscape. I don't care how big they are, you cannot rely on nostalgia to keep people around and it will come back to bite you in the arse if you do. It's a service that is not worth spending money on. It's at least 5 years undercooked.

 

[Warlock]

Streaming isn't going to be a major profit center for the foreseeable future. Netflix has much greater economies of scale than Disney and makes about $0.50 per month from each subscriber. While Disney owns its own IP, they will also be cannibalizing existing revenue streams to some extent. Streaming is replacing DVD and cable subscription revenue. It's more a shift in how people watch and pay for video than something new. Even then, SW as a whole will only account for a fraction of Disney's streaming and the ST movies will only account for a fraction of that fraction. Given audience reception, I would guess that The Mandalorian will have more value to the streaming division in the next 5 years than all of the ST movies combined.

As for Viacom, their failure had zero to do with stock buybacks. Most of the great companies buy back stock routinely once their hyper-growth phase is finished. Citing one bad company that did the same thing isn't dispositive. Heck, Disney itself spends $1 billion to $2 billion dollars every quarter buying back stock. That's the majority of their corporate profits.

It is a pleasure reading your logical, informed posts, shame they are so seldom. I'm not sure whether people just don't understand them, or if they refuse to recognize the truths the numbers represent due to their illogical worldview that has been programmed into them, causing significant cognitive dissonance. Who knows.

 

[TheVileOne]

That article is riddled with errors from beginning to end. The cost is not a one-time static price. The shares they gave away continue to become more valuable and have tripled in price since the deal was struck. Disney continues to pay dividends on that stock and will do so to the tune of $70 million and growing each year. Cost is well north of $8 billion now, not counting interest on the cash portion of the deal.

The movies have done $5.6 billion gross at the box office. Disney gets half or $2.8 billion. Production cost for those 5 movies is $1.27 billion per Star Wars Franchise Box Office History - The Numbers which leaves $1.53 billion. Deduct a conservative 50% of production budget for marketing and the movies netted less than $1 billion for Disney. In most cases marketing is closer to 80% of production cost.

OK, but that's just the movies. Star Wars is a brand that goes well beyond the films.

 

[Adder]

Revised Prediction:

I HATE TO ADMIT I WAS WRONG BUT I WILL MAN UP AND ADMIT: I WILL BE WRONG.

The Rise of Skywalker will hit a billion.

Domestic: 508.5$ million
International: 521.5$ million

Worldwide: 1.030 billion

I personally cannot wait for a Knights of The Old Republic trilogy - if the rumours are true - and Keanu Reeves ends up being the lead - Darth Revan a Jedi who dons a Mandalorian helmet - I expect such a movie to make over a billion in its first week.

I believe KOTOR is the last hope for star wars.

 

[TheVileOne]

The Keanu Reeves rumors are fake news.

 

[Zarex]

Streaming isn't going to be a major profit center for the foreseeable future. Netflix has much greater economies of scale than Disney and makes about $0.50 per month from each subscriber. While Disney owns its own IP, they will also be cannibalizing existing revenue streams to some extent. Streaming is replacing DVD and cable subscription revenue. It's more a shift in how people watch and pay for video than something new. Even then, SW as a whole will only account for a fraction of Disney's streaming and the ST movies will only account for a fraction of that fraction. Given audience reception, I would guess that The Mandalorian will have more value to the streaming division in the next 5 years than all of the ST movies combined.

Streaming wasn't invented with the launch of Disney Plus. The Mouse had been earning an estimated $300M annually since 2012 from the company's contract with Netflix. And even if Disney stopped developing new Star Wars content future revenues generated would be more than sufficient to justify the relatively meager $4B purchase price.

As for Viacom, their failure had zero to do with stock buybacks. Most of the great companies buy back stock routinely once their hyper-growth phase is finished. Citing one bad company that did the same thing isn't dispositive. Heck, Disney itself spends $1 billion to $2 billion dollars every quarter buying back stock. That's the majority of their corporate profits.

Old media companies that consider their hyper-growth phase to be over won't be around much longer. That's most successful of the lot - Kabletown, AT&T/Warner Media & Disney - have grown rapidly recently in order to compete with the more highly capitalized FAANG companies that are spending billions to attract eyeballs.

Viacom wasted billions on supporting a failing stock instead of investing in new franchises & digital media, and relying on film distribution deals with Marvel and Dreamworks instead of buying them outright. That's why the company as a whole - valued at $11.8B in the merger with CBS - is currently worth what Iger could get for Lucasfilm if he put the unit up for bid.

It is a pleasure reading your logical, informed posts, shame they are so seldom. I'm not sure whether people just don't understand them, or if they refuse to recognize the truths the numbers represent due to their illogical worldview that has been programmed into them, causing significant cognitive dissonance. Who knows.

It is a pleasure to see two completely different posters that just so happened to have joined the Hype on the same day supporting each other.

 

[JOE]

I don't think Keanu Reeves will be starring. I'm expecting a young up and coming actor/actress. Someone they can sign to a huge multi-picture deal that won't cost an arm and a leg.