Solo: Star Wars A Flop?

[Zardnaar]

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

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]

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.

 

[Kramodlog]

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]

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.

 

[trappedslider]

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.....

 

[Mallus]

wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....

But he’s a philosopher-king who moonlights as a movie critic. His opinions are probably TRUTH!

 

[Jester David]

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]

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]

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.