zlacker

It was part of a huge franchise, which it severely damaged. Of course people went in to see it. Most didn't like it, but they still paid for a ticket. However, many of them didn't bother watching the next one.

>>Andrew+(OP)
Indeed, the trilogy were my favorite movies growing up, and I went to see TLJ on the opening week. Haven’t watched a Star War since.

>>Andrew+(OP)
Interestingly it may be more accurate to measure performance of a movie by the initial sale of its sequel. I haven't gathered any data but I guess it'll be interesting.

>>Andrew+(OP)
> many of them didn't bother watching the next one.

The third movie was still one of the most successful movies of all time.

>>goto11+V91
The next movie was Solo, the first Star Wars Movie in a run of 10 to fail.

>>mauvia+Dj1
Solo probably failed because the average cinema-goer does not want to see a Han Solo spin-off with Harrison Ford replaced by an unknown B-list actor.

>>goto11+pP2
The actor was ok, btw, he was also very good in "Hail, Caesar".

>>goto11+V91
It takes more than one bad movie to kill a franchise of such magnitude. But I think Disney execs are going to persist in achieving this goal.

>>mcmoor+vv
Box office across all three of the sequel trilogy moves. The same is the case for the three movies in the original trilogy btw, so I guess we should conclude that "Return of the Jedi" was the only Star Wars was movie people actually liked, since The Force Awakens is one of the most successful movies of all time?

In reality, sequels tend to be less successful than the original, but can expect a certain audience. Since only very successful movies get sequels, sequels are still safer investments than original movies.