STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS - Blu-Ray Thoughts

[AndyDursin]

What we're seeing here is typical Disney branding/cross-promotion. Using ABC (a whole hour on Jimmy Kimmel), ESPN ("see the trailer only on Monday Night Football!"), every form of mass media they have at their disposal to work in references and outright advertising. I think it is greater than THE PHANTOM MENACE because Fox and Lucasfilm didn't own the vast media empire that Disney controls. I also don't remember this number of ads connected with it -- whether it's Target, Walmart, HP...it's freaking endless the amount of merchandizing/cross promotion out there for this movie. But it's Disney like Michael says. This was going to happen the second they gobbled up Lucasfilm.

In some regards, Lucas sold out to the Empire...and the Empire is blitzing everyone with endless promotion. All carefully orchestrated.

The marketing and merchandising for Phantom Menace was every bit as numbing and assaultive...and Disney has to work twice as hard this time because they're trying to entice aging geeks who felt really burnt by the Prequels (warranted or not) back to the Star Wars fold. They're hoping that sheer force of numbers will get everyone to see this, in case the movie disappoints and there's a sharp fall-off in the second weekend and beyond.

I don't think the aging geeks have anything to do with it. I also doubt there will be any kind of "sharp fall off" even if it's just "meh."

If JURASSIC WORLD as mediocre as it was could get away with $600+ million, what's going to stop this movie even if it's lousy? The only thing I can think of is opening it at Christmas and with kids only out of school for a couple of weeks...but we'll see. Something like LORD OF THE RINGS cleaned up over Christmas time.

The thing you have to remember about the fanboys -- for all the bitching and endless moaning about the prequels online, all three of them made a freaking FORTUNE. As bad as ATTACK OF THE CLONES was, did it impact REVENGE OF THE SITH in any negative way financially? Not at all.

This fanbase will go to see anything with STAR WARS on it. And based on how much money they made, more than a few people actually LIKED the prequels. Of course, the real world isn't an internet comments section...

[Monterey Jack]

The thing you have to remember about the fanboys -- for all the bitching and endless moaning about the prequels online, all three of them made a freaking FORTUNE. As bad as ATTACK OF THE CLONES was, did it impact REVENGE OF THE SITH in any negative way financially? Not at all.

Well, Phantom Menace made over $430 million in the U.S....but Attack Of The Clones barely made it past $300 million (and that's with a three-year increase in ticket prices), so I'd say the perceived poor quality of Menace did negatively effect the Star Wars "brand name". Revenge Of The Sith did better, mainly because it was the last, had all of the stuff fans wanted to see the most (destruction of the Jedi Order, Wookies instead of Ewoks, Darth Vader, etc.), and turned out to be better than the previous movie and word of mouth was, "Hey, this is actually good!"

[AndyDursin]

I'd say the perceived poor quality of Menace did negatively effect the Star Wars "brand name".

But the "failure" of ATTACK OF THE CLONES had nothing to do with ATTACK OF THE CLONES itself being a piece of crap?

Remember also when you are talking about a movie from 13 years ago, $300 million is a surplus of money -- as in the 3rd highest grossing film of the year. Adjusted for inflation it equals the gross of AVENGERS AGE OF ULTRON and that doesn't even count 3-D which wasn't around back then (meaning it sold more tickets than AVENGERS 2). For a film that received the worst reviews of the prequels and seems to be disliked the most by some (me anyway lol), that's still a ton of money that shows the fanbase would support it in spite of mixed reaction.

I also wouldn't have expected it to have outgross PHANTOM MENACE. That was the first new Star Wars movie in, what, 16 years and made a fortune. Everyone -- even people who aren't fans -- went to see it. By their nature, sequels typically do not outgross their predecessors -- even with 3 years of ticket inflation. See: EMPIRE, TEMPLE OF DOOM, and on and on.

The bottom line is -- for all the complaining -- the prequels did incredibly well. If these films are perceived by the fanboys as better they will make even more. But there is going to be an audience there for them -- kids especially who were raised on the prequels and the cartoon shows -- no matter what.

[AndyDursin]

Hey guys, it's STAR WARS WEEK...on GOOD MORNING AMERICA!

On a side note, it is kind of odd to hear the British leads in this movie. Are they from a planet in the Star Wars galaxy where the English accent is prevalent? lol

Daisy Ridley comes off like a Kiera Knightley clone in all the scenes and off-camera interviews I've seen.

[Monterey Jack]

On a side note, it is kind of odd to hear the British leads in this movie. Are they from a planet in the Star Wars galaxy where the English accent is prevalent? lol

Hey, even Carrie Fisher was adopting a vaguely British accent in some scenes of the original ("I recognized your foul stench when I was brought aboard!"), an affectation she never followed up on in the sequels.

[Monterey Jack]

I'd say the perceived poor quality of Menace did negatively effect the Star Wars "brand name".

But the "failure" of ATTACK OF THE CLONES had nothing to do with ATTACK OF THE CLONES itself being a piece of crap?

Undoubtedly, but there is precedent for a crummy sequel poisoning the well for future installments...look at the Matrix sequels, where Reloaded pulled in about $280 million, whereas Revolutions made barely a third of that only six months later.

One only wonders why the awfulness of the Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels didn't affect the absurd box office takes of the later ones. I mean, NO ONE liked the horrifically bloated and overproduced At World's End, and yet that fourth one still pulled in a billion worldwide.

[Paul MacLean]

On a side note, it is kind of odd to hear the British leads in this movie. Are they from a planet in the Star Wars galaxy where the English accent is prevalent? lol.

I'd chalk that up to us being in the "age of the British actor" -- when even Superman is played by an English guy!

Hey, even Carrie Fisher was adopting a vaguely British accent in some scenes of the original ("I recognized your foul stench when I was brought aboard!"), an affectation she never followed up on in the sequels.

That has always very much looked like misguided direction to me, where Lucas wasn't sufficiently monitoring Fisher's performance to keep it consistent. Lucas was never really an "actors director", and to me it's clear that she started drifting into that genteel English accent via osmosis, from being in the presence of Peter Cushing all day.

[mkaroly]

Hey guys, it's STAR WARS WEEK...on GOOD MORNING AMERICA!

[AndyDursin]

On a side note, it is kind of odd to hear the British leads in this movie. Are they from a planet in the Star Wars galaxy where the English accent is prevalent? lol.

I'd chalk that up to us being in the "age of the British actor" -- when even Superman is played by an English guy!

That's true -- but he wasn't using his actual accent in the role. These two are, and it's kind of jarring to hear. lol

Have to go to bed, get up early so I can check out GMA's STAR WARS week!!

[Eric Paddon]

How idiotic can you get.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... erchandise

[Paul MacLean]

How idiotic can you get.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... erchandise

How people have forgotten the "sultry Leia" on the original poster...

[Monterey Jack]

Guess Disney doesn't want to raise a new generation of Rosses...



Kind of hypocritical, though, considering that Princess Jasmine's slave outfit in Aladdin is every bit as racy.

[AndyDursin]

This is the kind of thing typical of Disney and their PC bulls--t. Only more of it to come!

[Paul MacLean]

And she didn't seem to mind when it put her on the cover of Rolling Stone...

[AndyDursin]

LOL!