Solo: Star Wars A Flop?

I think Star Wars is a fantastic setting that can be used to tell stories like the one in Solo. I would like to see more films like that a lot more than more films about saving the Republic from the Evil Sith Empire.
Maybe the biggest flaw of the movie is that it's about an established character. Imagine if they introduced a new Rogueish character instead that could go on his own adventures for a few movies!

But if this won't work commercially, I might be a minority.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
The conversation around this movie reminds me of the conversations that crop up when people make Star Wars games without Jedi.
 

Hand of Evil

Adventurer
Epic
What the heck is a swatch bucking movie? (English isn't my first language, so my apologies if it should be obvious...)

and my spelling is horrible...swashbuckling...gee, I am bad and English is my only language. :) Swatch Bucking is trying to ride a colorful wrist watch. :)
 
Last edited:


Eltab

Lord of the Hidden Layer
The conversation around this movie reminds me of the conversations that crop up when people make Star Wars games without Jedi.

Read "Star Wars: Scoundrels" by Timothy Zahn. The setting is clearly Star Wars but the only sign of a Jedi is somebody's old almost-broken lightsaber.
 

Read "Star Wars: Scoundrels" by Timothy Zahn. The setting is clearly Star Wars but the only sign of a Jedi is somebody's old almost-broken lightsaber.

Depending on what "making games without Jedi" is supposed to refer to - running a Star Wars game without Jedi? Sure. If the group likes that. But making a Star Wars RPG (Computer or Pen & Paper) without Jedi? I think you shoudn't do that. That's like making a fantasy game where wizards aren't playable, but still exist in the setting.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Depending on what "making games without Jedi" is supposed to refer to - running a Star Wars game without Jedi? Sure. If the group likes that. But making a Star Wars RPG (Computer or Pen & Paper) without Jedi? I think you shoudn't do that. That's like making a fantasy game where wizards aren't playable, but still exist in the setting.

Oops! It was already done!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/star-wars-edge-empire-showcase/

The rules for playing Jedi didn't come out until two years after the game was released.
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
I used to be a Star Wars junkie. But honestly Disney SW has pretty much killed my interest in the franchise, even the classic trilogy unfortunately, so instead of seeing this 7 times already I haven't and don't know if I will.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
Rogue One had barely a Sith cameo, and it was excellent. It certainly wouldn't have failed as a story if they'd dropped Vader entirely.
It was a bad film. Lame story full of plot holes and cardboard cute out characters. And unnecessary. Like Solo's backstory.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
And unnecessary.

Usually, a hammer is not necessary for making supper. However, a hammer is instrumental in building a dog house.

So, when you say the movie is unnecessary, there is an implied purpose. What is that purpose, in this case? What do they not need this to accomplish?

And, as a follow-up question, what stories are necessary? What *NEEDS* to be told? Or are all stories fundamentally unnecessary?
 
Last edited:

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
Usually, a hammer is not necessary for making supper. However, a hammer is instrumental in building a dog house.
That is a pretty terrible analogy.

What is that purpose, in this case?
Depends. For producers? Make money. It did. But you and I aren't producers, so it doesn't matter. For the general audience, like you and me? Tell an entertaining story. It didn't. No Star Wars film has pulled that off since the original trilogy. It can't. The material from the original trilogy is too thin and already has been spread over to much toast.

And, as a follow-up question, what stories are necessary? What *NEEDS* to be told? Or are all stories fundamentally unnecessary?
Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.
 

Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.

It's a valid question since you deemed that Rogue one and Solo's backstory were unnecessary as films, what SW stories are necessary as films in your opinion?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
For the general audience, like you and me? Tell an entertaining story. It didn't. No Star Wars film has pulled that off since the original trilogy. It can't. The material from the original trilogy is too thin and already has been spread over to much toast.

So, for all those people who say they found the film entertaining... they were wrong? They weren't entertained, but don't realize it? 'Cause you are speaking about "you and me" but seem to be applying taste that's all *you*. That's not really cool. Speak for yourself all you like, but allowing for others to like different things than you would be better.

I mean, if we all liked the same things, that'd be boring. And just think of the haggis shortage.

Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.

Not emotional about it at all. They are literally rhetorical questions - questions whose unstated answers make the rhetorical point.

And, since you didn't answer, I think my point was made. Thanks.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Seems official now.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/solo-star-wars-box-office-flop

Google solo SW flop there are more. Down 65%+ in the second weekend after an underwhelming 1st weekend, projected to get no more than 450 million (500 is about break even).

The cost of the thing also makes it hard. 250 million to make, 150 in marketing and due to cinemas getting a cut of the movie that is why they need around 500 million to turn a profit.

So Disney may be on the hook for 50-100 million loss. Which is not the worst results they have ever had.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...neys-biggest-box-office-fails.html/?a=viewall
 

Oops! It was already done!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/star-wars-edge-empire-showcase/

The rules for playing Jedi didn't come out until two years after the game was released.

However, that doesn't mean that I think they should have done it that way. Though at least in the setting of the "Edge of the Empire", I would say that the space wizards practically do not exist in the setting, so it might also be acceptable to not have them in the rules.
But once you expand the game to another era (or area?), you will find something is missing, and as you say, they eventually added them.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Though at least in the setting of the "Edge of the Empire", I would say that the space wizards practically do not exist in the setting, so it might also be acceptable to not have them in the rules.

But, isn't it true that they practically do not exist any time after Episode III? They're only "common" during the period of the Old Republic. By the time of Episode IV, Han hardly believed they existed, much less that they had actual power. So, by that logic, any game set after Episode III doesn't need them in the rules....
 


Mallus

Legend
I'm not surprised Disney won't recoup their costs, given the film's storied, troubled, and therefore extra-spendy production, but I *am* surprised by the sharp audience drop. I figured word-of-mouth would help the film. Solo is certainly unambitious, and the final shooting scrip may or may not be in the form of an actual checklist, but it is entertaining. The Hail, Caesar! guy is surprisngly good as young Han. Ditto the Queen of the Dragons, Earn Calrissian, Woody Abernathy, and Phoebe Waller-British as Che3.

(I kid a little, but they really were a fine cast for an inconsequential movie)

What surprised me, though, is it's exactly what I thought a segment of the SW fanbase wanted: fun, well-made fan-service. It's almost-but-not-quite the anti-The Last Jedi.

For my $11 -- of whatever I paid for a Philly matinee opening day -- Solo is nowhere near as good TLJ. That one stuck in my mind for weeks. I still can't decide if I put it ahead of the original as the best SW movie. But Solo was fine, better than fine, even.
 

Seems official now....

The cost of the thing also makes it hard. 250 million to make, 150 in marketing and due to cinemas getting a cut of the movie that is why they need around 500 million to turn a profit.

So Disney may be on the hook for 50-100 million loss. Which is not the worst results they have ever had.

The first rule of Hollywood Accounting is that you never believe the Hollywood Accounting. If we believe the numbers that include "all" costs, no movie has ever made a profit. Heck, going by your numbers, Return of the Jedi is a flop.

When most people call something a "flop", they go by the production budget. It's not a perfect analysis, but it's the best analysis that is available before the numbers are laundered. OTOH, when websites want to generate traffic, they'll call any highly Googled movie a flop as long as it isn't a smash hit. This is the same phenomenon that describes why so many tech websites will call every new iPhone a failure, or why you hear about every Tesla crash.


That article doesn't even try to be honest. By its own admission, Prince of Persia returned $336 million at the box office off a $200 million budget. Yet it's listed as a bigger flop than Treasure Planet, which was a legitimate loss with $109 million returns on a $140 million budget.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top