I came across this chart - very clearly shows just how bad the acolyte was. I doubt it will go the way of the Willow just yet because that would really be admitting how bad it was, and for KK that could well be career ending after the string of bad results she's overseen. but yes after Willow, Dial of Destiny (which I really enjoyed so I'm glad they made it) the poor SW movies (in general) I think any other studio head would have gone by now - does make you wonder doesn't it....
Andor being lower than She Hulk is criminal
Indeed- can't believe She Hulk isn't bottom of the pile. Reckon Andor Season 2 should have quite an uptick in viewers.
I agree Andor 2 I think will do well, people have had a lot of time to find it and realise just how good it is, especially next to more recent stuff, and while Goonies in Space could well be fun, I susspect it will pass adults by, meaning the big SW this year comes from Andor... If that is the case, kinda sad there can't be a S3 given it is meant to end where the film kicks off... But maybe thats a good thing
Kennedy could set fire to Bob Iger's trousers whilst he was still wearing them, and still not be fired. She's cost Disney billions in failed and underperforming projects of all kinds (Galaxy's Edge, the Galactic Starcruiser Hotel, Willow, Indy 5, Solo, TROS, virtually every D+ Star Wars show [each costing ~$200+ million; just wait for the actual Acolyte costs to be revealed, as I guarantee they will be a damn sight more that the $180 Disney is admitting], the complete and utter death of Star Wars merchandise sales, etc., etc.), literally billions.
Great news that they will not do a season 2 and destroy even more of the star wars universe. But they damage star wars with a uncomplete series. I must admit that is something I have feared would happen when disney began to make star wars series. Series that would not be completed because it is all about money. If they made less series and movies then maybe they would do a much better job, but they can't get enough money, as I said it is all about money and money can destroy as much as money can create.
Wasn't that x2.9 profit exposed as the usual Disney smoke and mirrors?
Sorry Andy, but @Twin30mm is quite correct. Disney are simply liars. They based that bullsh*t claim of 2.9 x profit for Star Wars by EXCLUDING pretty much all outlay and costs, including the not inconsequential matter of the initial $4 billion purchase price! (LOL). And then they seriously rigged and massaged the alleged revenue taken in, and included projected sums from projects they haven't even made yet, in order to magic up a claim of profitability that simply wasn't true. This was done incidentally in order to scupper Nelson Peltz's proxy battle to win Disney Board seats, by making the company look more successful / profitable to gullible, ill-informed share-holders (many of whom I doubt will be fooled again next year when Peltz doubtless tries again; he may have sold his stake in Disney since the proxy battle, but that was when the share price was relatively high and garnered him over a billion dollars in profit for his trouble, and just like he's done before, you can expect to see him buy it all back again, and then some, once he feels the price has nose-dived far enough). Lucasfilm has not just lost Disney money, it's lost them billions overall to date, and the person responsible for that is Kennedy. Blame Iger for everything else, but at Lucasfilm, the buck stops with her.
I'm sorry, but the Screenrant article is it best woefully ignorant, and at worse deliberately deceptive. They claim the best way to calculate the movie profits is to take the global box office for each film and deduct its official production cost! That's laughable! For starters Disney only gets back at best 50% of the box office take on average globally (the theatres don't show them for free you know), and for seconds, as indicated above, and as even stated later in the article for Solo under their calculated figures, the official production costs are often grotesque underestimates, not least because they don't include marketing! That usually runs to at least $100 million if not $200 million per film when talking about an alleged blockbuster like a Star Wars film. Factor those trivial matters in, and the movie profits don't look quite so rosie do they? And if Screenrant is wrong to that extent about the films profits (and they certainly are), how can we trust anything else they say?! They don't mention it in the article, but famously the High Republic has been a miserable failure with books sitting unsold on shelves everywhere! Comic sales in almost every genre except manga are in the toilet too, so there's not gonna be a lot of profit coming to Lucasfilm from that direction, and whilst merchandising in general should be a cash cow, with the exception of Lego, I grant you, there are multiple reports of merchandising partners grumbling like crazy at Disney / Lucasfilm due to piss poor sales on account of their piss poor output.
Yeah, ScreenRant. That last bastion of unbiased journalism. I think not.
Thank you for this article (and the previous one). Yes, it's a much more realistic estimate, although as it clearly states, it tries to repeatedly err on the side of Disney, giving them the benefit of the doubt throughout the calculations, and hence almost certainly paints a more rosy picture for Disney / Lucasfilm than is really the case. Even so, the inescapable conclusion is that Disney has still not yet turned a profit with Lucasfilm, i.e. factoring in all profits and losses, they are still in the red from their initial purchase! And that with what was the greatest entertainment IP in the world, a supposed guaranteed cash cow, which thanks to KK's astonishing mismanagement, has lost or failed to make billions in multiple areas where George seemed to have no difficulties.
By this point it is fairly clear that since the acquisition things have been on the skids and at the end of the day that has to be owned by the head of the studio.
What a great article. Thanks.
