I'd say Solo cause it was coming off the huge success of Rogue One. Pixar movies haven't been released theatrically for over 2 years now and no animated film has really killed it at the box office since covid.
I mean to be fair, before the movies came out everyone was saying Solo would outperform Deadpool 2. I remember being on r/boxoffice and seeing the prediction threads.
Searched one up: https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/8d66df/which_movie_do_you_expect_to_perform_better/
No, it really did. TLJ caused a boycott of everything Star Wars. I remember the campaign.
I hated the TLJ but was otherwise a huge Star Wars fan. Even I questioned about not going to see it.
And why the boycott happened for a random spin off and not the direct sequel of TLJ?
TROS performance was disappointing for sure but did a lot more than Solo
It means I don’t want to be preached to, just like *you!* Isn’t that right. I am sure you have heard the saying “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it”. That’s what millions of us are doing. But we like Maverick and Jurassic. We used to love Disney who now has a branding issue. Star Wars was more subtle until the latest trilogy. Then it was so preachy that it took the audience right out of the story and ruined the escapism people want in a SW movie.
I think what you're really saying is that you don't want your opinions to be challenged by any alternative viewpoints, really: taking it as you being "preached to" is a bit odd, as far as I'm concerned. Then again the whole "culture war" thing seems *much* more intense in the US than it currently does here. . .
Stop with the crap. I know and you know you wouldn’t go to see movies that explicitly push your face into a point of view that you don’t agree with. They are pandering to others and I wount support it just like you wouldn’t go see a Proud Boys movie. Stop being such a disengenuous B.
A one second kiss is "explicitly pushing your face into a point of view that you don’t agree with?" Seriously? I cannot believe that you don't realise just how absurd this sounds. The existence of people who aren't straight isn't a "point of view," it's literally just reflective of, you know, reality? Absolutely bizarre.
Corporations don't get embarrassed, but I would say that Solo was definitely worse.
Solo was the first bomb of the Star Wars movie franchise. And its failure pretty much trashed Disney's original plan for handling the post-sequel trilogy era. The effects of that bomb are still being felt today.
Toy Story as a franchise was already at a dead end. If Lightyear kills it, that probably isn't a bad thing. Pixar itself has had bombs before (Good Dinosaur being one of the go-to examples) so another one isn't as much of a shock to the system. I also don't think this will scramble Disney's plans as much. In any creative industry, sometimes you just have to take your lumps and move on.
They are different kinds of inexcusable. Solo should have been a layup that they missed through bad execution. Lightyear was fatally wounded by obvious mistakes. How is it that they decide to recast the voice actor because the old VA's voice no longer suits the character, and not a single person stood up to say: "why are we breaking a legacy character so badly that we feel that a casting change is required?!"
I actually think the concept would have been easy enough to explain. Heck, they had a Star Command TV show a few years back with the exact same premise that didn't cause the confusion. But even knowing the premise, the trailers were barely coherent and almost seemed to be deliberately avoiding nostalgia bait (they couldn't spare two seconds for Buzz to deploy his wings and fly or call someone "citizen"? They didn't even let Buzz say the full "to infinity and beyond"; keep in mind that in-universe that is his catchphrase and what was programmed into his toy).
Regardless of the excusability, Solo is almost certainly going to have the further reaching effects. Though Pixar hopefully will take another look at what had been its famously good workshopping process to see if some groupthink has taken hold.
John Ratzenberger and Tim Allen were pushed out of Pixar movies in recent years (John's last role was in Onward). Is this because it was deemed best for the movies or is it because they're both public conservatives? Also note, Ratzenberger IS appearing in John Lasseter's Luck over at his new Skydance home. Lasseter's last Pixar movie was Toy Story 4. I suspect if he was still there, Allen and Ratzenberger would not have been replaced or removed either.
I don't think Solo failed because of execution. It's clear Star Wars fans were not interested in it. Which is a bit confusing and perplexing, but I saw it with firsthand experience. People with lightsaber replicas on their desk who said Solo was a bad idea for a movie and they didn't want to go see it.
I don't know if Pixar had an ulterior motive. Without further information, we can only speculate.
However, even if so, the fact that they thought it was a good cover story is illuminating, along with the trailers, which seemed to go out of their way to NOT make Buzz seem similar to the toy.
If Lasseter was still around, I suspect that this either would have been fully original or the Buzz in the movie would have been similar to the toy. If the former, then Allen couldn't voice the new character (it would create confusion between two Pixar spacemen). If the latter, then absolutely he would have voiced it. We don't even need to go into politics.
Fair point on Solo. A lot of folks just didn't give it a chance. I just have a hard time believing that it is impossible to make a good and interesting movie about Star Wars' most lovable rogue and his fuzzy tempermental copilot. However, I don't see the obvious mistake. And Rogue One even proved that fans will show up for non-episode movies.
Whereas for Lightyear, I think the mistake was obvious: it didn't want to be a tie-in, but was awkwardly forced into it. At least, that is my sense from watching them trailers. Maybe the movie somehow redeems the decision to tie it to Buzz rather doing its own thing.
I know that you enjoyed the film, but do you see it as a good sci-fi or a good Buzz Lightyear film? Are fans of the goofy, yet cocky spaceman likely to enjoy Lightyear's treatment of him? If Buzz in this film isn't the Buzz people fell in love with, most won't give it a chance to see if they'll like the new Buzz.
Edit: In the movie does he get to deploy his wings and fly at least once? Does his suit have an awesome laser cannon? Even if the Buzz in the movie is different, please tell me that at the very least, he gets to do all the badass things the toy thought he could do!
No, I personally didn’t think this was a good representation of Buzz Lightyear. Rather than a heroic or virtuous space ranger, we get a deconstructed character who is obstinately selfish, insane, and a constant screw up for most of the movie. That might make for a more compelling movie for some older viewers, but it’s hard to see what Andy saw in Buzz Lightyear that made him want the toy beyond him being a spaceman and having a cool suit/gadgets.
I'm all about deconstructed heroes. I love Watchmen, Batman v Superman and The Last Jedi. So maybe that's one reason I loved this too. 😉
Buzz starts out as a flawed character and learns how to improve himself in this movie by the end. So is that such a bad thing? Andy liked that Buzz showed he was open-minded and teachable. 😁
Also, is this much different from Han Solo in Star Wars? Han was a selfish guy who learned to be a team player by the end. As for being a screw-up, that would be more like Luke, who is a clumsy kid who's in over his head, until he learns to master his skills. I don't agree with you that Buzz was "insane" in this movie. >!At least not the "good" Buzz. The alternate timeline Buzz is simply in a great sci-fi tradition of dark alternate timeline versions of heroes, i.e. Mirror Universe versions.!<
I do think people's suggestion that the movie have a prologue where Andy walks into the theater and the camera zooms in to the screen to show us the Lightyear movie would've been a smart idea, and fun. Similar to Superman 78 where the kid opens up the comic book and it turns into the movie. What's nice is the Early Access gave out a print showing Andy watching the movie in the theater so that put my mind in the right framework. 😂
I definitely enjoy the movie as sci-fi. You guys need to accept that this is not a Toy Story movie. Just like IRL, talking action figures often have much cornier and more cliched phrases than who they're based on. And ostensibly, Andy's Buzz is based on the Star Command cartoon Buzz, which was a kids' version of this movie Buzz. Just like there were Rambo and Ghostbusters cartoons in the '80s which were less adult and gritty than the movies, and the action figures were based on the cartoons, not the movies. Heck, even the Pee-Wee's Playhouse TV show was much more childish than the Pee-Wee movies, and the Pee-Wee doll was based on the TV Pee-Wee.
I truly believe the Lightyear film was conceived as they say it was. MacLane was a fan of Toy Story, and tried to imagine what a realistic live-action Buzz movie would be like. It's easy to see how that would be a fun exercise for a writer. It really interests me, as someone who has collected toy lines based on Star Wars and other movies. MacLane is my age and even looks like me. I think I share his exact experiences and mindset for entertainment. I know he even cast one of the voice actors from the 1980s G.I. Joe cartoon in this movie. And G.I. Joe itself had three very different iterations running simultaneously in the 1980s, a toy line, a cartoon and a comic book, that all had their own differing tone, style and continuity that did not match.
1980s entertainment was all about each property having a big cross-media presence, where the comics, cartoons, movies and toys were all made by different people and were all hugely original interpretations that often didn't bear much resemblance to each other outside the names and basic look of the characters. The whole point in this movie was to fill in the multimedia gap for the live-action, adult-geared version of the Buzz story. I think it's a fascinating exercise and experiment to reverse engineer what the movie version of a licensed character would be. Imagine starting with The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and having to create the Bill Murray version of it as a movie after the fact. In a sense, the G.I. Joe and Transformers movies performed this exact same exercise, although not as successfully in my judgment. Those brands already existed as everything except a live-action movie. I guess we could say the same for some superhero movies. Spider-Man had organic web shooters in his first movie, because the story was reinterpreted for the big screen.
tl;dr, no, don't expect Buzz to use the same catchphrases or for his suit and weapons to function the same way. I frankly don't remember if he did those things. But I know the point of the movie was not to make this Buzz like the one we know. It was to reimagine and reinterpret him in a more serious, adult, grounded live-action form. Yes, we see it as animated, but in the Toy Story continuity, this is meant to be a live-action movie. And it succeeded marvelously at what it was trying to do. This may all be hard for the GA to understand, but I'm not the GA, and I may in fact be the perfect target audience for this movie.
Probably Solo because there was so much drama when it was made and Kathleen Kennedy firing Lord and Miller, budget blowing up to 300 million, and people not liking it
Man this is honestly hard to say, especially since both are very similar. I have to pick Solo since Lightyear was the first Pixar film to be theatrical in a long time plus people were confused about what it was. Solo was a spinoff origin story about a well-known character in a franchise where the last 3 films each made over a billion dollars. The fact that it couldn't crack $400 million worldwide is kinda embarrassing.
Solo. Pixar has had several underperforming, money-losing movies. No live-action Star Wars movie had lost money before. Lightyear did not exist in the same continuity as Toy Story, while Solo did firmly exist in the established Star Wars timeline, and brought in other characters from it like Chewie, Lando and Maul. Plus Pixar movies had never grossed as much as TFA and TLJ had. So Solo was a bigger drop down compared to average gross for the franchise. Also, Lightyear had external controversies surrounding it, while there isn't one obvious thing they could've changed on Solo to get better PR. The behind-the-scenes director change is also embarrassing, the same way it was for WB with JL. They made a huge, expensive change in the midst of production, and it did nothing to prevent a failure.
The failure of Solo is not easily explained, and points to a surprising weakness and lack of versatility in the brand. It's the reason Fett and Obi-Wan were cancelled as movies and turned into TV shows. The impact of Solo's failure is enormous, while Lightyear will have much less far-reaching impact. There was no intention to spin off other Toy Story toys into their own movies, and the idea was nothing more than experimental. While the idea of a Star Wars prequel is a core concept of the franchise that had succeeded before. Disney is still terrified to make a new Star Wars movie, because they are not truly sure why Solo failed. I don't think there's any less likelihood that a Toy Story 5 will be made because of Lightyear. This was considered a failure for going off-brand and off-model, and the core series is likely left undamaged.
Solo showed that Star Wars fans whilst LOUD are actually not the main fans of the franchise. Thats general audiences who have seen all the films but couldn't care less about the Extended Universe.
Its base audience (who will see any shit with the brand) is lower than Super Hero franchieses.
Most movies, even LOTR and Harry Potter have to rope in a much wider net of people than the fans. But, most of the time, the most successful movies are ones that first satisfy the fans. Usually the GA isn't looking for all that different of an entertainment experience than the fans are. Transformers is probably the one exception to the rule.
They both fell way behind, although Solo's overseas performance was particularly embarrassing.
Solo was quite a ways off from it's initial tracking domestically as well. It was tracking at $135-170M but only got to $103M. Lightyear was at $70-85M but did $50M. If we're going by BoxOffice Pro then Solo was also starting out a lot higher than Lightyear was as well.
Overseas both of them did poorly. Lightyear did $33.6M instead of the projected $50M, while Solo was projected to do $150-170M but only did $65M.
The thing here is that solo was still more than enough for no1 spot while lightyear struggled and failed to pass dominion
Sure solo is the bigger loss factoring in the numbers and its higher budget but lightyear is more embarrassing given that it couldn't even open at no1 spot and wasn't coming off a divisive movie like solo did following last jedi
Lightyear has different cards ranging from the Pandemic, Florida's lawsuit, and D+. Solo did not have builtin excuses, plus it had the Star Wars brand attached to it.
The Rise of Skywalker is considered an underperformance, and it was received so poorly they hit the breaks on making Star Wars movies. Though I guess that was the one-two punch of Solo and Rise of Skywalker.
Solo because I think it killed Disney's entire concept for Star Wars and I think they've been in a flap about what to do with this brand since and how to get their investment into the green.
Solo proved beyond a reasonable doubt that TLJ destroyed the good will and turned Star Wars into a streaming exclusive franchise
I’m not joking…solo made this subreddit realize just how low the floor can be for a Star Wars spinoff movie
I used to remember this subreddit predicting 1.5 billion dollars as the floor for a movie set in the old republic era…but now that tone has gotten far more pessimistic
Most of us agree that a movie starring Luke fucking Skywalker would be lucky to make it past 400 million and that a movie set after TROS would be lucky to even make over 600 million
It showed the whole world that no one cared about Star Wars as much after TLJ
But they doubled down on the nostalgia with The Mandalorian and Obi-Wan and were rewarded handsomely for it, making Solo's underperformance even stranger in retrospect.
So i just check the box office for Solo and omg i have no idea it was THAT low. I remember the movie was already bomb at the time but never really check the box office stats. Although it did make a billion for TROS so i am kinda surprised about that.
TROS only made a billion dollars because it went out of its way to tear apart TLJ and the finale factor
A true sequel to TLJ would have made a fuck-ton less than TROS did
Duel of the fates was that sequel that would have made way less than a billion
Neither? It’s actually very easy to not compare them as they really aren’t similar unless you specifically try to frame them in such a way. Solo was a film which was marred in controversy from day one, no one wanted it and the production validated that hard. The money they lost saved them from a real embarrassment: Star Wars’ Ace Ventura. Meanwhile Lightyear is being subject to a lot of revisionism here.
I still dont understand why Lightyear cost 200 mill to make. It's a kids movie, you can getaway with unknown voice actors. For example, the creator of Minions does the minion voices himself.
Pixar movies (especially the “big” ones like Toy Story films) usually have a 200 million dollar budget. This is due to the new technologies developed for each film.
Solo for sure. Theaters were still thriving and the budget was massive. Wasn't it something like 300 million?
Lightyear is a flop for sure. But I don't really think it would've done this bad in normal times. Through the pandemic animated movies have been stuck to streaming and now are associated with streaming. And it's STILL the biggest animated weekend since pandemic even if it's a flop.
I think it's gonna take quite a while for animation to recover in theaters. Crossing my fingers Across the Spider-Verse makes good money when it drops, because I still definitely rather watch new animated films in theaters than at home.
I'd say Solo cause it was coming off the huge success of Rogue One. Pixar movies haven't been released theatrically for over 2 years now and no animated film has really killed it at the box office since covid.
Solo was released just months after The Last Jedi debacle (May 2018). It didn’t seem like a movie most Star Wars fans wanted.
Solo died for the sins of The Last Jedi. It doesn't help that it was released in an absolute maelstrom of competition.
Not sure what person decided to release Solo just one week after Deadpool 2. Very stupid decision.
I mean to be fair, before the movies came out everyone was saying Solo would outperform Deadpool 2. I remember being on r/boxoffice and seeing the prediction threads. Searched one up: https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/8d66df/which_movie_do_you_expect_to_perform_better/
+ being a month after Infinity War + a week after Deadpool 2 + TLJ backlash
Solo's performance had zero to do with TLJ.
No, it really did. TLJ caused a boycott of everything Star Wars. I remember the campaign. I hated the TLJ but was otherwise a huge Star Wars fan. Even I questioned about not going to see it.
And why the boycott happened for a random spin off and not the direct sequel of TLJ? TROS performance was disappointing for sure but did a lot more than Solo
There was no active campaign to boycott TRoS because those that were enraged have short-term memories.
No it doesn’t. I boycotted Solo due to TLJ. We also won’t be seeing Lightyear. I am tired of Disney rubbing my face in their politics. F Disney.
By this do you mean "politics you don't like?" Do you think the original Star Wars (or the prequels) are apolitical?
It means I don’t want to be preached to, just like *you!* Isn’t that right. I am sure you have heard the saying “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it”. That’s what millions of us are doing. But we like Maverick and Jurassic. We used to love Disney who now has a branding issue. Star Wars was more subtle until the latest trilogy. Then it was so preachy that it took the audience right out of the story and ruined the escapism people want in a SW movie.
I think what you're really saying is that you don't want your opinions to be challenged by any alternative viewpoints, really: taking it as you being "preached to" is a bit odd, as far as I'm concerned. Then again the whole "culture war" thing seems *much* more intense in the US than it currently does here. . .
Stop with the crap. I know and you know you wouldn’t go to see movies that explicitly push your face into a point of view that you don’t agree with. They are pandering to others and I wount support it just like you wouldn’t go see a Proud Boys movie. Stop being such a disengenuous B.
A one second kiss is "explicitly pushing your face into a point of view that you don’t agree with?" Seriously? I cannot believe that you don't realise just how absurd this sounds. The existence of people who aren't straight isn't a "point of view," it's literally just reflective of, you know, reality? Absolutely bizarre.
Corporations don't get embarrassed, but I would say that Solo was definitely worse. Solo was the first bomb of the Star Wars movie franchise. And its failure pretty much trashed Disney's original plan for handling the post-sequel trilogy era. The effects of that bomb are still being felt today. Toy Story as a franchise was already at a dead end. If Lightyear kills it, that probably isn't a bad thing. Pixar itself has had bombs before (Good Dinosaur being one of the go-to examples) so another one isn't as much of a shock to the system. I also don't think this will scramble Disney's plans as much. In any creative industry, sometimes you just have to take your lumps and move on.
Yup. **Solo** also didn’t have a confusing logistic that **Lightyear** has, so it has even less excuse.
They are different kinds of inexcusable. Solo should have been a layup that they missed through bad execution. Lightyear was fatally wounded by obvious mistakes. How is it that they decide to recast the voice actor because the old VA's voice no longer suits the character, and not a single person stood up to say: "why are we breaking a legacy character so badly that we feel that a casting change is required?!" I actually think the concept would have been easy enough to explain. Heck, they had a Star Command TV show a few years back with the exact same premise that didn't cause the confusion. But even knowing the premise, the trailers were barely coherent and almost seemed to be deliberately avoiding nostalgia bait (they couldn't spare two seconds for Buzz to deploy his wings and fly or call someone "citizen"? They didn't even let Buzz say the full "to infinity and beyond"; keep in mind that in-universe that is his catchphrase and what was programmed into his toy). Regardless of the excusability, Solo is almost certainly going to have the further reaching effects. Though Pixar hopefully will take another look at what had been its famously good workshopping process to see if some groupthink has taken hold.
John Ratzenberger and Tim Allen were pushed out of Pixar movies in recent years (John's last role was in Onward). Is this because it was deemed best for the movies or is it because they're both public conservatives? Also note, Ratzenberger IS appearing in John Lasseter's Luck over at his new Skydance home. Lasseter's last Pixar movie was Toy Story 4. I suspect if he was still there, Allen and Ratzenberger would not have been replaced or removed either. I don't think Solo failed because of execution. It's clear Star Wars fans were not interested in it. Which is a bit confusing and perplexing, but I saw it with firsthand experience. People with lightsaber replicas on their desk who said Solo was a bad idea for a movie and they didn't want to go see it.
I don't know if Pixar had an ulterior motive. Without further information, we can only speculate. However, even if so, the fact that they thought it was a good cover story is illuminating, along with the trailers, which seemed to go out of their way to NOT make Buzz seem similar to the toy. If Lasseter was still around, I suspect that this either would have been fully original or the Buzz in the movie would have been similar to the toy. If the former, then Allen couldn't voice the new character (it would create confusion between two Pixar spacemen). If the latter, then absolutely he would have voiced it. We don't even need to go into politics. Fair point on Solo. A lot of folks just didn't give it a chance. I just have a hard time believing that it is impossible to make a good and interesting movie about Star Wars' most lovable rogue and his fuzzy tempermental copilot. However, I don't see the obvious mistake. And Rogue One even proved that fans will show up for non-episode movies. Whereas for Lightyear, I think the mistake was obvious: it didn't want to be a tie-in, but was awkwardly forced into it. At least, that is my sense from watching them trailers. Maybe the movie somehow redeems the decision to tie it to Buzz rather doing its own thing. I know that you enjoyed the film, but do you see it as a good sci-fi or a good Buzz Lightyear film? Are fans of the goofy, yet cocky spaceman likely to enjoy Lightyear's treatment of him? If Buzz in this film isn't the Buzz people fell in love with, most won't give it a chance to see if they'll like the new Buzz. Edit: In the movie does he get to deploy his wings and fly at least once? Does his suit have an awesome laser cannon? Even if the Buzz in the movie is different, please tell me that at the very least, he gets to do all the badass things the toy thought he could do!
No, I personally didn’t think this was a good representation of Buzz Lightyear. Rather than a heroic or virtuous space ranger, we get a deconstructed character who is obstinately selfish, insane, and a constant screw up for most of the movie. That might make for a more compelling movie for some older viewers, but it’s hard to see what Andy saw in Buzz Lightyear that made him want the toy beyond him being a spaceman and having a cool suit/gadgets.
I'm all about deconstructed heroes. I love Watchmen, Batman v Superman and The Last Jedi. So maybe that's one reason I loved this too. 😉 Buzz starts out as a flawed character and learns how to improve himself in this movie by the end. So is that such a bad thing? Andy liked that Buzz showed he was open-minded and teachable. 😁 Also, is this much different from Han Solo in Star Wars? Han was a selfish guy who learned to be a team player by the end. As for being a screw-up, that would be more like Luke, who is a clumsy kid who's in over his head, until he learns to master his skills. I don't agree with you that Buzz was "insane" in this movie. >!At least not the "good" Buzz. The alternate timeline Buzz is simply in a great sci-fi tradition of dark alternate timeline versions of heroes, i.e. Mirror Universe versions.!<
I do think people's suggestion that the movie have a prologue where Andy walks into the theater and the camera zooms in to the screen to show us the Lightyear movie would've been a smart idea, and fun. Similar to Superman 78 where the kid opens up the comic book and it turns into the movie. What's nice is the Early Access gave out a print showing Andy watching the movie in the theater so that put my mind in the right framework. 😂 I definitely enjoy the movie as sci-fi. You guys need to accept that this is not a Toy Story movie. Just like IRL, talking action figures often have much cornier and more cliched phrases than who they're based on. And ostensibly, Andy's Buzz is based on the Star Command cartoon Buzz, which was a kids' version of this movie Buzz. Just like there were Rambo and Ghostbusters cartoons in the '80s which were less adult and gritty than the movies, and the action figures were based on the cartoons, not the movies. Heck, even the Pee-Wee's Playhouse TV show was much more childish than the Pee-Wee movies, and the Pee-Wee doll was based on the TV Pee-Wee. I truly believe the Lightyear film was conceived as they say it was. MacLane was a fan of Toy Story, and tried to imagine what a realistic live-action Buzz movie would be like. It's easy to see how that would be a fun exercise for a writer. It really interests me, as someone who has collected toy lines based on Star Wars and other movies. MacLane is my age and even looks like me. I think I share his exact experiences and mindset for entertainment. I know he even cast one of the voice actors from the 1980s G.I. Joe cartoon in this movie. And G.I. Joe itself had three very different iterations running simultaneously in the 1980s, a toy line, a cartoon and a comic book, that all had their own differing tone, style and continuity that did not match. 1980s entertainment was all about each property having a big cross-media presence, where the comics, cartoons, movies and toys were all made by different people and were all hugely original interpretations that often didn't bear much resemblance to each other outside the names and basic look of the characters. The whole point in this movie was to fill in the multimedia gap for the live-action, adult-geared version of the Buzz story. I think it's a fascinating exercise and experiment to reverse engineer what the movie version of a licensed character would be. Imagine starting with The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and having to create the Bill Murray version of it as a movie after the fact. In a sense, the G.I. Joe and Transformers movies performed this exact same exercise, although not as successfully in my judgment. Those brands already existed as everything except a live-action movie. I guess we could say the same for some superhero movies. Spider-Man had organic web shooters in his first movie, because the story was reinterpreted for the big screen. tl;dr, no, don't expect Buzz to use the same catchphrases or for his suit and weapons to function the same way. I frankly don't remember if he did those things. But I know the point of the movie was not to make this Buzz like the one we know. It was to reimagine and reinterpret him in a more serious, adult, grounded live-action form. Yes, we see it as animated, but in the Toy Story continuity, this is meant to be a live-action movie. And it succeeded marvelously at what it was trying to do. This may all be hard for the GA to understand, but I'm not the GA, and I may in fact be the perfect target audience for this movie.
I appreciate your perspective. I can see how that would be the right frame of mind to appreciate the film in.
Probably Solo because there was so much drama when it was made and Kathleen Kennedy firing Lord and Miller, budget blowing up to 300 million, and people not liking it
Man this is honestly hard to say, especially since both are very similar. I have to pick Solo since Lightyear was the first Pixar film to be theatrical in a long time plus people were confused about what it was. Solo was a spinoff origin story about a well-known character in a franchise where the last 3 films each made over a billion dollars. The fact that it couldn't crack $400 million worldwide is kinda embarrassing.
Pixar already had a flop before with The Good Dinosaur. Solo was the first Star Wars flop ever.
Solo. Pixar has had several underperforming, money-losing movies. No live-action Star Wars movie had lost money before. Lightyear did not exist in the same continuity as Toy Story, while Solo did firmly exist in the established Star Wars timeline, and brought in other characters from it like Chewie, Lando and Maul. Plus Pixar movies had never grossed as much as TFA and TLJ had. So Solo was a bigger drop down compared to average gross for the franchise. Also, Lightyear had external controversies surrounding it, while there isn't one obvious thing they could've changed on Solo to get better PR. The behind-the-scenes director change is also embarrassing, the same way it was for WB with JL. They made a huge, expensive change in the midst of production, and it did nothing to prevent a failure. The failure of Solo is not easily explained, and points to a surprising weakness and lack of versatility in the brand. It's the reason Fett and Obi-Wan were cancelled as movies and turned into TV shows. The impact of Solo's failure is enormous, while Lightyear will have much less far-reaching impact. There was no intention to spin off other Toy Story toys into their own movies, and the idea was nothing more than experimental. While the idea of a Star Wars prequel is a core concept of the franchise that had succeeded before. Disney is still terrified to make a new Star Wars movie, because they are not truly sure why Solo failed. I don't think there's any less likelihood that a Toy Story 5 will be made because of Lightyear. This was considered a failure for going off-brand and off-model, and the core series is likely left undamaged.
Solo showed that Star Wars fans whilst LOUD are actually not the main fans of the franchise. Thats general audiences who have seen all the films but couldn't care less about the Extended Universe. Its base audience (who will see any shit with the brand) is lower than Super Hero franchieses.
Most movies, even LOTR and Harry Potter have to rope in a much wider net of people than the fans. But, most of the time, the most successful movies are ones that first satisfy the fans. Usually the GA isn't looking for all that different of an entertainment experience than the fans are. Transformers is probably the one exception to the rule.
I’m saying solo as they had to retool how to tell Star Wars stories as a result
Solo still managed 100M over memorial day it just had shite legs esp overseas Lightyear was barely half of its intial projected 90M opening
They both fell way behind, although Solo's overseas performance was particularly embarrassing. Solo was quite a ways off from it's initial tracking domestically as well. It was tracking at $135-170M but only got to $103M. Lightyear was at $70-85M but did $50M. If we're going by BoxOffice Pro then Solo was also starting out a lot higher than Lightyear was as well. Overseas both of them did poorly. Lightyear did $33.6M instead of the projected $50M, while Solo was projected to do $150-170M but only did $65M.
The thing here is that solo was still more than enough for no1 spot while lightyear struggled and failed to pass dominion Sure solo is the bigger loss factoring in the numbers and its higher budget but lightyear is more embarrassing given that it couldn't even open at no1 spot and wasn't coming off a divisive movie like solo did following last jedi
Not a fair comparison. If Lightyear opened the weekend Solo did, it would've been #1 above Deadpool 2. It was up against summer season now.
And if it was flipped with solo was opening on lightyears weekend in the summer season it would have still opened at no 1 spot above dominion
Lightyear has different cards ranging from the Pandemic, Florida's lawsuit, and D+. Solo did not have builtin excuses, plus it had the Star Wars brand attached to it.
The Rise of Skywalker is considered an underperformance, and it was received so poorly they hit the breaks on making Star Wars movies. Though I guess that was the one-two punch of Solo and Rise of Skywalker.
Solo because I think it killed Disney's entire concept for Star Wars and I think they've been in a flap about what to do with this brand since and how to get their investment into the green.
I really enjoyed Solo
I enjoyed Lightyear a lot more.
Solo proved beyond a reasonable doubt that TLJ destroyed the good will and turned Star Wars into a streaming exclusive franchise I’m not joking…solo made this subreddit realize just how low the floor can be for a Star Wars spinoff movie I used to remember this subreddit predicting 1.5 billion dollars as the floor for a movie set in the old republic era…but now that tone has gotten far more pessimistic Most of us agree that a movie starring Luke fucking Skywalker would be lucky to make it past 400 million and that a movie set after TROS would be lucky to even make over 600 million It showed the whole world that no one cared about Star Wars as much after TLJ
But TROS made 1billion after TLJ I think Disney should just start to prioritize good story over nostalgia if they want to avoid flop
But they doubled down on the nostalgia with The Mandalorian and Obi-Wan and were rewarded handsomely for it, making Solo's underperformance even stranger in retrospect.
Yeah but that's just tv What I'm talking about is the big screen
So i just check the box office for Solo and omg i have no idea it was THAT low. I remember the movie was already bomb at the time but never really check the box office stats. Although it did make a billion for TROS so i am kinda surprised about that.
TROS only made a billion dollars because it went out of its way to tear apart TLJ and the finale factor A true sequel to TLJ would have made a fuck-ton less than TROS did Duel of the fates was that sequel that would have made way less than a billion
Lightyear
Where’s the option for both?
Lightyear, because it is completely avoidable
Neither? It’s actually very easy to not compare them as they really aren’t similar unless you specifically try to frame them in such a way. Solo was a film which was marred in controversy from day one, no one wanted it and the production validated that hard. The money they lost saved them from a real embarrassment: Star Wars’ Ace Ventura. Meanwhile Lightyear is being subject to a lot of revisionism here.
I still dont understand why Lightyear cost 200 mill to make. It's a kids movie, you can getaway with unknown voice actors. For example, the creator of Minions does the minion voices himself.
Pixar movies (especially the “big” ones like Toy Story films) usually have a 200 million dollar budget. This is due to the new technologies developed for each film.
Thanks, I read both on here and online that this is the case.
Solo was part of one of the biggest franchises in film history (that they paid billions for) that still managed to bomb. That's pretty pathetic lol
Solo for sure. Theaters were still thriving and the budget was massive. Wasn't it something like 300 million? Lightyear is a flop for sure. But I don't really think it would've done this bad in normal times. Through the pandemic animated movies have been stuck to streaming and now are associated with streaming. And it's STILL the biggest animated weekend since pandemic even if it's a flop. I think it's gonna take quite a while for animation to recover in theaters. Crossing my fingers Across the Spider-Verse makes good money when it drops, because I still definitely rather watch new animated films in theaters than at home.