ChuckeRearmed
Member
But is it worse than Solo?Yeah I just read WW it's opening to around $148m. This isn't counting memorial day, but still that is awful for a Star Wars movie.
But is it worse than Solo?Yeah I just read WW it's opening to around $148m. This isn't counting memorial day, but still that is awful for a Star Wars movie.
Solo is more offensive to classical SW lore but it's also a more interesting film with much better characters.But is it worse than Solo?
Yeah I just read WW it's opening to around $148m. This isn't counting memorial day, but still that is awful for a Star Wars movie.
Article: For the first time in nearly seven years, "Star Wars" fans finally had a reason to go to the movies.
And plenty of 'em showed up for "The Mandalorian and Grogu," which collected $82 million in its opening weekend and an estimated $102 million through Monday. Those ticket sales are aligned with expectations, though box office analysts are mixed on the results. On one hand, it's significant for any film to debut above $100 million in post-pandemic times. On the other, "Star Wars" is one of Hollywood's preeminent film properties, so there's an expectation of a certain level of box office. And this start is the worst for "Star Wars" since Disney bought the franchise in 2012.
Prior to this weekend, that unfortunate distinction belonged to 2018's spinoff "Solo: A Star Wars Story," which opened to $84 million over the weekend and $103 million through the Memorial Day holiday, not adjusted for inflation. "Solo," however, was plagued by other issues, including lackluster reviews and tepid word-of-mouth — none of which helped in terms of box office longevity. It became the first "Star Wars" movie ever to lose money in its theatrical run, tapping out with $392 million globally against a massive budget of nearly $300 million.
"The Mandalorian and Grogu" carries a leaner $165 million price tag and, perhaps more importantly, has the benefit of positive audience scores. A truer test of commercial viability will be the film's second weekend in theaters. That'll indicate whether "The Mandalorian and Grogu" is just appealing to fans of the franchise, or if the movie can become a breakout among family crowds. Opening weekend ticket buyers were 63% male while 75% were above the age of 25. Jon Favreau directed the film, which earned an "A-" grade on CinemaScore exit polls. For comparison, 2019's "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" earned a "B+" grade. The story takes place after the third season of the Disney+ series "The Mandalorian" and revolves around Pedro Pascal's Din Djarin and his adorable green sidekick as they navigate a galaxy that's recovering from the fall of the evil Empire.
At the international box office, "The Mandalorian and Grogu" earned $64 million for a global start of $145 million over the three days and $165 million over the four-day frame.
That depens. That activist droid was insufferable to me. Let's not talk about her final role,Solo is more offensive to classical SW lore but it's also a more interesting film with much better characters.
Yes, part of the offensive to classical SW lore content. But setting that aside and Han's name origin and a few other things, it actually has some real characters like young Lando, Chewie, Emilia Clarke's femme fatale and Woody Harrelson's scoundrel mentor.That depens. That activist droid was insufferable to me. Let's not talk about her final role,
. Lando was great though (why didn't they make a movie about him with that actor?).
Yes, part of the offensive to classical SW lore content. But setting that aside and Han's name origin and a few other things, it actually has some real characters like young Lando, Chewie, Emilia Clarke's femme fatale and Woody Harrelson's scoundrel mentor.
Mando has a bunch of…creatures?
Yeah, I won't deny it, Mando & Grogu isn't particulary memorable about its new characters. Specially with its excessive CGI.Yes, part of the offensive to classical SW lore content. But setting that aside and Han's name origin and a few other things, it actually has some real characters like young Lando, Chewie, Emilia Clarke's femme fatale and Woody Harrelson's scoundrel mentor.
Mando has a bunch of…creatures?
It's Star Wars for kids. For very small kids. It's pretty much a better version of that TCW movie. It isn't particulary pretentious or offensive, Mando and Grogu are the main characters and not like season three, it has a lot action and higher budget than the tv show, and it's not like the worst kiddie parts of Star Wars (the lowest lows of the Phantom Menace, that R2 arc of TCW, those Ewoks movies, the Holiday Special...). Buuut...ugh, I could cut easily half of an hour, its bad guys are very lame, too much reliance on CGI, some action scenes are too chaotic, the movie feels a little bland and adds...barely anything to the characters or the lore.Alright. People, please tell me the truth. How is this movie? Seems like a Star Wars for kids? As some of you have posted.
Let me know your thoughts.
Excessive CGI? They used a TON of puppets, real sets, and stop motion. The volume made all of sigoury qeavers scenes look bad but otherwise it was a real treat for practical effects IMHO.Yeah, I won't deny it, Mando & Grogu isn't particulary memorable about its new characters. Specially with its excessive CGI.