3 ms·
I think that SW7 analogy does not work here. Disney is exception to this article and their movies are profitable, big time.
by tomashertus 10y ago
I think that SW7 analogy does not work here. Disney is exception to this article and their movies are profitable, big time.
- Retric 10y agoProfitable yes, but the question is how many hoops you will jump through to see the SW movie next year and the year after that. Remember, Disney put out 'Land before time 13' because they made money on the first 12 'Land before time' movies. But, 13 was never going to see a movie theater.
- __david__ 10y agoI plan on seeing 8 and 9 (and the intervening Han Solo movie) in the theater on opening day with my brother, like I have for the previous 2. You keep comparing "Star Wars" to "The Land Before Time". I think you vastly underestimate the popularity of Star Wars, particularly the past 2 movies.
- Retric 10y agoIt was #2 for the year and wildly profitable. So, no I am not doubting there where plenty of people who loved the movie. The movie was above average and that's the problem. Hollywood depends on movies like The Sorcerer's Stone, The Fellowship of the Ring, A New Hope, Bourne Identity, even Iron Man to drive future revenue. Movies that build off of that success make money, but they don't prime the pump.
- ascagnel_ 10y agoEspecially since the former is targeted at broad appeal, while the latter is more specifically a series of children's movies. Also, "The Land Before Time" was a Universal Studios product (per Wikipedia), not a Disney product, so the starting approach is very different.
- Retric 10y agoOps yea, George Lucas put out the first 'the first land before time' movie but after that there was no real connection.
- parfe 10y agoDisney has nothing to do with The Land Before Times
- Retric 10y agoOps, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg put out the first The Land Before Time movie which is why I was making the connection to Star Wars.