Solo: Star Wars A Flop?

Zardnaar

Legend
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.

Even without hollywood accounting though you still need to make more than production costs to turn a profit. If you movie makes 250 million but costs 250 million you still lose money.

There is also sites that estimate the profit of movies excluding Hollywood accounting. Unless things pick up drastically Solo will probably lose money and IDK if things like merchandising can save it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Even without hollywood accounting though you still need to make more than production costs to turn a profit. If you movie makes 250 million but costs 250 million you still lose money.

Nope. You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit. Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office. Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital). And they don't have action figures or video games.

You don't get to spin it in both directions. If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes. And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Nope. You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit. Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office. Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital). And they don't have action figures or video games.

You don't get to spin it in both directions. If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes. And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.

And video rentals are dead now. I suppose you oculd make money on things like renting it out online.

And by box office I mean things like DVD/video etc sales as well. Even if they break the estimated 450 million mark its still well short of Rogue Ones haul. Rogue One over performed for its expectations (they were a lot lower than TFA). Can't count that yet but the overall theme is still the same, Solo not doing that well.

I still haven't seen Solo, got side tracked in the weekend but from the sounds of it its not the worst SW movie (looking at TPM and AotC). If I catch it via some online service later its no big deal. Its the 1st SW movie since 1997 I have not rushed out to watch ASAP though. I travelled 120km to watch the 1997 Special Editions on the big screen;). Its about 3 or 4 km to watch Solo by comparison.

If I had to pick an exact reaosn I think it was The Last Jedi it killed my excitement which TFA and Rogue One did not manage to pull off.
 
Last edited:

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
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?

The first one. It came out at the right time, in the right place, with the right themes and thus why it was so successful. It filled some void or niche or need or whatever in USian -and Western to lesser extant- culture. It is why some lines or scenes are so famous and pervacive. Why you do not need to have seen the movie to know them. Why it is still of cultural importance today. And why Disney keeps trying to milk it for cash, but just puss is coming out right now. But originally it was just one movie. No trilogy, no universe. Vader wasn't Luke's dad or anything. Just one story with an end.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
So, for all those people who say they found the film entertaining... they were wrong?
Of course. People have low standards. Just look at the money the Transformers films made. Or how people buy all sort of crap and say they like it.

They weren't entertained, but don't realize it?
Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards. But some people are just attracted to what is familiar. Some will just see anything with the Star Wars logo on it. Some have short term memory. Others just were never exposed to quality. But most are just programmed to consumme. It is what mass marketing and mass culture is about in our capitalist world.

But people weren't really interested in it when you look at the box office compared to other Star Wars films. Just like how you can see the DCU films are terrible when you look at how the box office performance and quality of those films. The Star Wars franchise is not in good health and it is because quality isn't there. Admitting it is the first step.

'Cause you are speaking about "you and me" but seem to be applying taste that's all *you*.
Not at all. Quality is mesurable by all. It just takes a distance. To be less emotionally involved. Like Star Wars fans are. That is the real problem here. If you weren't a fan, there could be a discussion about how bad the films are. But instead it is about anything but the quality of the films. And that won't help the franchise you're a fan of. It will just lead to a horrible death. Imagine a rebooted Vader inspired by Leto's Joker.

That's not really cool.
Meh. Trying to be cool is not cool.

Speak for yourself all you like, but allowing for others to like different things than you would be better.
People need help to come out of the cave. Plato was right. There are not the shadows you are looking for.
 

The first one. It came out at the right time, in the right place, with the right themes and thus why it was so successful. It filled some void or niche or need or whatever in USian -and Western to lesser extant- culture. It is why some lines or scenes are so famous and pervacive. Why you do not need to have seen the movie to know them. Why it is still of cultural importance today. And why Disney keeps trying to milk it for cash, but just puss is coming out right now. But originally it was just one movie. No trilogy, no universe. Vader wasn't Luke's dad or anything. Just one story with an end.

so basically everything after A New Hope was unneeded and unnecessary in your opinion. wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....
 


Nope. You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit. Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office. Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital). And they don't have action figures or video games.

You don't get to spin it in both directions. If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes. And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.

Shawshank Redemption had a $25 million dollar budget and made $28 million at the box office, and likely didn't have much of an advertising budget. So it just needed to make $25 million in TV and video sales to be in the black. And as one of the most critically well received movies of the '90s, this was easy. It's still not a huge hit.
Meanwhile, the Interview, which cost roughly $40+ million, *almost* made that back between box office and rentals. So it's still a money loser. Maybe close to breaking even.

Now, the above have $40 million in video sales portrayed as decent. Solo needs to make an additional $250 million to just break even and far, far more to be a hit. Even with robust streaming and solid disc sales, it's likely going to be many, many years before it turns a profit.
 

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls
I still haven't seen Solo, got side tracked in the weekend but from the sounds of it its not the worst SW movie (looking at TPM and AotC). If I catch it via some online service later its no big deal. Its the 1st SW movie since 1997 I have not rushed out to watch ASAP though. I travelled 120km to watch the 1997 Special Editions on the big screen;). Its about 3 or 4 km to watch Solo by comparison.


I think right here tells the story. How many people started seeing box office numbers and early posts about flops, and let that dictate their decision? I certainly think such a thing can and does adversely affect movies such as this one.

How many of those who are not like Zard, swimming in the echo chamber of 'But how much money did it make' accounted for the drop in the second week? How many are now thinking, I'll just wait till I can purchase it cheap or stream it? Probably no way to tell, though, I firmly believe all of this talk had a hand in what took place.

Say what you will about such a phenomena. I think it is a bit sad. Watch the movie (sure, see it as cheap as you can, its your money after all), then decide if the movie is good/entertaining.

Instead this breeds people who haven't even seen the dang film to decry it. (no offense Zard) And how is that helpful to someone looking for information to make the decision to see it?

It was a good movie. It was not the best Star Wars film, and it was certainly not the worst. I have wondered though, if the lack of Jedi harmed it. Unsure. Maybe Disney will turn a profit, maybe not. I don't think they will be hurting though. There will still be marketable merchandise that comes away from this.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Disney will recoup its costs on Solo with streaming/on-demand, premium channel showings, cable channel showings, broadcast channel showings, blu-ray/DVD sales, and most of all, ancillary merchandising. And they might even make some money. It's not box office numbers alone.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Of course. People have low standards. Just look at the money the Transformers films made. Or how people buy all sort of crap and say they like it.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards.

Who gets to define standards as low or high? See below before you answer this.

Meh. Trying to be cool is not cool.

When "be cool" is "be decent to your fellow human beings", I disagree with your assertion.

People need help to come out of the cave.

Have you considered the possibility that *you* are the one in the cave? After all, yours is the place of dankness and disapproval, were few things are worthy of enjoyment. That's pretty cave-like.
 

Mallus

Legend
Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards.
The juxtaposition of these two sentences is hilarious. Was that intentional?

Also, the problem isn't just that people have low standards It's that there's often broad disagreement over what the standards are. Obvious point is obvious (obvs).

But some people are just attracted to what is familiar.
This is a really odd point to make in a conversation presumably with genre fans. By definition, fans of a given genre want familiar elements - because that's what genres are. Collections of plots, themes, stock characters, and common elements shared between works that get that place them in the same general category. Which makes discussion the unfamiliar and the innovative vis a vis genre media something that requires a bit of nuance (and less 'implied sheeple' argumentation).

Some will just see anything with the Star Wars logo on it. Some have short term memory. Others just were never exposed to quality. But most are just programmed to consumme. It is what mass marketing and mass culture is about in our capitalist world.
See above re: less implied sheeple rhetoric.

The Star Wars franchise is not in good health and it is because quality isn't there.
See now I disagree (oh so many different standards!). Of the 4 contemporary Star Wars films, 2 are excellent, 1 is very good, and 1 is good, despite a troubled production. For starters, The Last Jedi is absolutely gorgeous in places, and -- at least for middle-aged me -- surprisingly emotionally resonant (the sad Luke parts).

Quality is measurable by all.
Agreement over said measurements, however...

Seriously though, can you list a few films you consider to be 'quality'? Without an example of your baseline, this is just "You have bad taste! Do not! Do too!"

It just takes a distance.
This could be the start of a beautiful... I mean, good point.

To be less emotionally involved.
But this kinda wrecks it. Art that provokes an emotional response is art that works. Especially one that endures over time. I know what your saying: people's emotional attachment to a given work/franchise/whatever clouds their more intellectual assessment of it. But that elides how those attachments form in the first place, the validity of those reactions, and how easy it is for intellectual assessments of art to eclipse more honest responses.

If you weren't a fan, there could be a discussion about how bad the films are.
Begging the question, you are. A good film critic does not this thing.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I think right here tells the story. How many people started seeing box office numbers and early posts about flops, and let that dictate their decision? I certainly think such a thing can and does adversely affect movies such as this one.

How many of those who are not like Zard, swimming in the echo chamber of 'But how much money did it make' accounted for the drop in the second week? How many are now thinking, I'll just wait till I can purchase it cheap or stream it? Probably no way to tell, though, I firmly believe all of this talk had a hand in what took place.

Say what you will about such a phenomena. I think it is a bit sad. Watch the movie (sure, see it as cheap as you can, its your money after all), then decide if the movie is good/entertaining.

Instead this breeds people who haven't even seen the dang film to decry it. (no offense Zard) And how is that helpful to someone looking for information to make the decision to see it?

It was a good movie. It was not the best Star Wars film, and it was certainly not the worst. I have wondered though, if the lack of Jedi harmed it. Unsure. Maybe Disney will turn a profit, maybe not. I don't think they will be hurting though. There will still be marketable merchandise that comes away from this.

I don't mind if a movie doesn't do well at the box office to go see it I have not been excited fro Star Wars:Solo for a while. I don't really care about a movies commercial success as to if I see or like it. Labyrinth for example was a flop at the box office and its one of my favourite movies ever. The interest was never there.

YOu can tell a good Star Wars Story without the force (the old X-Wing novels come to mind).
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
so basically everything after A New Hope was unneeded and unnecessary in your opinion. wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....
Not an opinion. Just facts. Vader wasn't originally Luke's dad. There were no plans for a trilogy or universe. Disney is milking the brand for cash. The films are terrible... Stop being emotionally involved and just read about it. You'll found out for yourself.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
The juxtaposition of these two sentences is hilarious. Was that intentional?
Of course. Cause it is factual and this is the internet. Ravenous fans try to defend bad art when it is indefendable. I'm working on many levels here, but that escapes most people. Gratz! You saw I work on many levels.

Also, the problem isn't just that people have low standards It's that there's often broad disagreement over what the standards are. Obvious point is obvious (obvs).[/quoe]Honest people do not disagree. The problem is he mental gymnastics fans will go through to justify bad stuff. Or the lack of mental effort most people put into things. Many people eat at McDonald's and say it was good. These sort of films are the same.

This is a really odd point to make in a conversation presumably with genre fans.
I'm talking about Star Wars fans. Not gerne fans. Star Wars fans are the kind of people who make an actress delete her posts cause of abuse. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44379473

You know. People who won't say/see something is bad even when it is.

See now I disagree
Fans sadly always do. Like how DC fans say the film franchise is doing great.

Seriously though, can you list a few films you consider to be 'quality'?
I can.

But this kinda wrecks it. Art that provokes an emotional response is art that works.
Not just emotions. It can provoke thoughts too. The problem is that most people will have neither. "MacDonald's yummy in my tummy. Good!" That is it. The belly is full. Momentarely. That is positive by itself. Nothing more. That doesnt mean MacDonald's is good.

Begging the question, you are. A good film critic does not this thing.
I do not pretend to be anything but honest and factual.
 

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel
De gustibus non est disputandum.
You're just using a saying in latin as a fallacy. Reductio ad latinium.

Who gets to define standards as low or high?
You do not recognize mesures of quality? Interesting. You drink sour milk?

I disagree with your assertion.
Ironically, you're disagreeing with yourself. A typial fan's response who will attack the messenger rather than the message. I will not do your homework for you. Check why I'm saying this. And double check. Cause I will not tell you say "I do not see it".

Have you considered the possibility that *you* are the one in the cave?
Being able to honestly say the Star Wars film were bad after the first trilogy means him out the cave. Try to join us. I know you can! You all can! Put Star Wars to rest. Stop feeding Disney with your money and thus your approval. Resists. Let Star Wars be what it should be. A memory.
 

Not an opinion. Just facts. Vader wasn't originally Luke's dad. There were no plans for a trilogy or universe.

well this interview says different
POLLOCK: In 1971, I became George’s attorney. He was just doing THX 1138 with Francis Coppola at Warner Bros, which was an extension of the short he did at USC. The first deal we did was a two-picture deal at United Artists Corporation for George to write a script called American Graffiti, and for an untitled science fiction movie, in nine parts. Swear to God. This was what was in the contract. I know this because when Skywalker Ranch was built, George had a time capsule buried. One of the things I put in there was that contract, along with the articles of incorporation of Lucasfilm.

https://deadline.com/2015/12/star-w...-historic-rights-deal-tom-pollock-1201669419/

DEADLINE: Back when that first deal was forming, and George ended up with $150,000 for the first film, did you think they would say yes to giving George ownership?
POLLOCK: Who knew? The point was, at that point I was a lawyer, doing what my client wanted. And what my client wanted wasn’t the money, it was the ability to get the movie made. I didn’t know it, but at some point when he was doing the first Star Wars, he had worked out the basic plot of episode V and VI. You know, Darth Vader…Vader means father, in German. It means Dark Father.

As for the Solo movie, the fans over at bloomilk, a star wars miniature gaming site seem to have loved it *shrugs*
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Honest people do not disagree.

What?

That might be true... if we were ants. If we were all physically and psychologically the same, if we had the same upbringings, and life experiences knowledge and understaning. But real people differ from each other - have different wants, needs, desires and sensibilities and perspectives. So, we disagree on stuff.

Or, perhaps to use your formulations: Honest people accept that some things are subjective, not objective.



I'm talking about Star Wars fans. Not gerne fans. Star Wars fans are the kind of people who make an actress delete her posts cause of abuse. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44379473

You know. People who won't say/see something is bad even when it is.

Um, I don't understand the mental gymnastics there.

My understanding is that you claim the fans have low standards, and will accept anything fed to them. But, this is an example* of them absolutely hating something fed to them, and reacting violently to it. They thought it was bad, and said so by hounding someone off social media for it. So, how does this support your point? This is evidence that fans can and will be highly critical of that which doesn't match their tastes.

*It is, actually, an example of a small number of fans being complete jerks. Stronger language would be more appropriate, but is not allowed here.


Edit: Oh, I just realized who I'm talking to. Never mind. Hi goldo!
 
Last edited:

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top