Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

No sequel, I'm afraid. I liked the movie, but it's dead, Jim.

It's pretty obvious they totally bungled the first film and that is their own fault they overran on cost so heavily. So, that's all on them. They obviously thought they had a "billion" dollar film on their hands but fell way short of that.

The reason I think that they would consider doing a sequel is they could do it removing the idiotic mistakes they made on the first film. Set a budget on the picture of $125 million which would put them in a reasonable investment to return ratio and they might turn a profit on it. Plus doing a sequel would likely boost sales of the first film as people would, as fans often do, want to revisit the first film (buy it, rent it) as people seem to always obsess about having all the films in a franchise if they are fans.

So, investing judiciously in a sequel could work for them if they set their goal on return at a reasonable number and the big thing is they have people under contract and everything in place so this would be an easy sequel to make.

 

[Tino]

It's pretty obvious they totally bungled the first film and that is their own fault they overran on cost so heavily. So, that's all on them. They obviously thought they had a "billion" dollar film on their hands but fell way short of that.

The reason I think that they would consider doing a sequel is they could do it removing the idiotic mistakes they made on the first film. Set a budget on the picture of $125 million which would put them in a reasonable investment to return ratio and they might turn a profit on it. Plus doing a sequel would likely boost sales of the first film as people would, as fans often do, want to revisit the first film (buy it, rent it) as people seem to always obsess about having all the films in a franchise if they are fans.

So, investing judiciously in a sequel could work for them if they set their goal on return at a reasonable number and the big thing is they have people under contract and everything in place so this would be an easy sequel to make.

What I think youre missing Reggie is that most people didn’t want a Solo film in the first place. Perhaps you should watch it so you have a frame of reference in this discussion.

That’s the primary reason for its failure in the first place.

Face it. SOLO is, was, and ever will be a solo film.

 

[Sam Favate]

What I think youre missing Reggie is that most people didn’t want a Solo film in the first place. Perhaps you should watch it so you have a frame of reference in this discussion.

That’s the primary reason for its failure in the first place.

Again, we're gonna disagree here. I wanted a Solo film. Lots of people did. I don't think you spend $4 billion for movie franchise and not make films about its most beloved characters. That's idiotic.

Also, it is not the primary reason for the film's failure. The primary reason is the bloated budget that came about because of the change in directors midway through filming. That move essentially doubled the budget and made it nearly impossible to make a profit. The other main reason was releasing it after one of the biggest movies in history (Avengers IW) and another successful franchise movie (Deadpool 2). You're not going to get those kinds of audiences three times in one month. Bob Iger has admitted the release date was a mistake and part of the film's problem.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

What I think youre missing Reggie is that most people didn’t want a Solo film in the first place. Perhaps you should watch it so you have a frame of reference in this discussion.

That’s the primary reason for its failure in the first place.

Face it. SOLO is, was, and ever will be a solo film.

Yes, it is in the house here but you are correct I have not watched it yet. My wife seems to feel it will be a good film to show guests over the holiday...though she has not seen it yet either.

I have no idea of the quality of the picture so I am not really commenting on that. I am not a Star Wars fan so I'm not at all plugged in to however fans felt about a Han Solo film. I know my wife, who is a Star Wars fan, was against the film because she felt nobody but Harrison Ford should play the character.

When you say "most people" did not want to see it though, that seems not to account for the fact that a lot of people did see it...to the tune of nearly $400 million.

I agree with you that they miscalculated on how popular the film would be, that's obvious, but now they have a number to work with. They know that the first film took in close to $400 million. They have everybody under contract. So, in this time of sequels being extremely popular I would not be shocked if they decided to make Han Solo 2.

I mean I don't care if they do or if they don't. If they never made another Star Wars film of any kind I would be fine with that but I think I am more shocked that Denis Villeneuve would get a green light to make Dune or James Gray would get the money to make Ad Astra than I would be if Disney suddenly said "Yeah, we are going to make another Han Solo picture."

If they can budget the film properly and have reasonable expectations they could have a second film that earns over $350 million...that is a fantastic number for a film like Ad Astra but of course even a bad Han Solo film hits that number where Ad Astra would need a lot of luck to get there.

 

[Tino]

Again, we're gonna disagree here. I wanted a Solo film. Lots of people did. I don't think you spend $4 billion for movie franchise and not make films about its most beloved characters. That's idiotic.

Also, it is not the primary reason for the film's failure. The primary reason is the bloated budget that came about because of the change in directors midway through filming. That move essentially doubled the budget and made it nearly impossible to make a profit. The other main reason was releasing it after one of the biggest movies in history (Avengers IW) and another successful franchise movie (Deadpool 2). You're not going to get those kinds of audiences three times in one month. Bob Iger has admitted the release date was a mistake and part of the film's problem.

I didn’t say ALL people. I said Most. And I stand by that. And I also stand by my opinion that’s it’s the major reason for its failure. No matter when it was released. It was idiotic indeed in the first place to overestimate its appeal.

You’re right Sam. Well just have to agree to disageee.

 

[Tino]

When you say "most people" did not want to see it though, that seems not to account for the fact that a lot of people did see it...to the tune of nearly $400 million.

I didn’t say most people did not want to see it. I said they didn’t want a Solo film in the first place. There’s a difference.

 

[Tino]

Look. Personal opinions aside, the facts are the film was a financial failure and there are no current or future plans for a sequel. It’s Show Business remember.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I didn’t say most people did not want to see it. I said they didn’t want a Solo film in the first place. There’s a difference.

So, if you were the person behind the desk at Disney making the decision and you had a group come in and say "We have a great story for Han Solo 2 and we can bring this picture in at $95 million." you would tell them to get out of your office "No way we are making that!"

I'm thinking a Han Solo sequel would, if released at the right time without a ton of competition, would likely easily make over $300 million worldwide. That seems a reasonable risk.

 

[Tino]

So, if you were the person behind the desk at Disney making the decision and you had a group come in and say "We have a great story for Han Solo 2 and we can bring this picture in at $95 million." you would tell them to get out of your office "No way we are making that!"

Yup. Been there. Done that. Bring me something original. Next.

 

[TravisR]

I would like to see/think the best move would be to make movies with original characters, scenarios, etc. but also have the occasional existing character movie. That being said, the Marvel movies show that once the public trusts a brand, they will come to the movies where they don't know the characters but do know the universe. How many people outside of a comic book store have even heard of the Guardians Of The Galaxy or Ant-Man before their movies? Those were D-list characters before Hollywood.

 

[Tommy R]

While I don't think they will make another Solo, I very much see Reggie's point, which is what I've commented on in the past. This movie was a financial failure solely because of the budget ballooning. It opened to about $100 million domestic IIRC, with a release date stupidly close to Infinity War. That's quite good if you ask me. It very well could have been marginally better had it been released in December, which is where the new era of SW films have thrived. But considering it all, I don't think they'll make another Solo because Disney probably wants EVERY SINGLE SW film to make over a billion, no exception. They could easily put together a quality Solo sequel for a fraction of the first one's budget, have it do respectable business and turn of profit. But they want to turn a HUGE profit.

As far as people not wanting Solo, I don't think it matters what people "want" either way. Everyone I know who went and saw Solo in the theater loved it, and most of them liked it more than TLJ. I don't think anyone of these people "wanted" a Solo film. They all saw it because it was Star Wars and it was about a character they knew. And judging by the enthusiasm it was a worthy film experience.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm thinking a Han Solo sequel would, if released at the right time without a ton of competition, would likely easily make over $300 million worldwide. That seems a reasonable risk.

Disney doesn't want to make movies that make $300 million. They make event movies that are designed to make billions of dollars, especially on Star Wars films. They don't do medium-sized films anymore. It's not Disney's style.

 

[Malcolm R]

Even if you shave $100m off the budget due to the director fiasco and other production issues, this film is still not profitable at only $393m worldwide. That level of gross for a SW film is really unprecedented and likely unacceptable to the studio.

It's telling that the film may not even finish in the Top 20 worldwide for the year once all the current and upcoming 2018 films are counted (it's currently #16). Again, unprecedented for a SW universe film.

Also, when films like The Nun, The Meg, Rampage, Venom, and Peter Rabbit, post better or similar numbers than a SW release, it indicates a real problem with that title.

I find it hard to find any positive reason that Disney might want to try another Solo film.

 

[Sam Favate]

Imagine if the movie didn't have the behind the scenes drama and its budget stayed at about $125 million. Also imagine it was coming out Dec. 14, about four weeks from now. It may not have done Last Jedi numbers, but I bet it would have been a solid hit.

 

[JimmyO]

There are multiple reasons this film didn't do well, and I don't think any one reason can be counted on as the absolute reason.

Sure, budgetary concerns, a rocky production, questionable desire for this film by the fans (How smart was it to kill of Solo and then do a prequel about him?) I personally didn't feel compelled to see it or to see another actor portray him.

But by no small measure, one of the reasons for failure has to be this - Star Wars is one of the most beloved franchises in history. There's no shortage of channels for people to talk about it and express how they felt about the film.

If the film was a strong, must-see amazing story, that would have gotten out and the film would have blown away the box office.

This to my mind was the main reason it didn't do well - in the eyes of Star Wars fans, it just wasn't a great Star Wars movie worth promoting to their friends and other fans.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

There are multiple reasons this film didn't do well, and I don't think any one reason can be counted on as the absolute reason.

I agree. I don’t think it was any one particular thing on its own but the perfect storm of multiple little reasons that added together took a chunk out of its box office potential.

It was almost like The Force Awakens in reverse. For that movie to make as much as it did, the stars had to line up just right and they did. For Solo to be that much of a disappointment, everything had to line up just so and did.

I think any one of the factors that hurt Solo’s performance could have been overcome, but all of them together became insurmountable.

 

[questrider]

Imagine if the movie didn't have the behind the scenes drama and its budget stayed at about $125 million. Also imagine it was coming out Dec. 14, about four weeks from now. It may not have done Last Jedi numbers, but I bet it would have been a solid hit.

Exactly. I've always thought that if Solo: A Star Wars Story was viewed through the optic of not having to re-shuffle the entire production by firing Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and bringing in Ron Howard to re-shoot a majority of the film it would have been considered a success and we would have a sequel. But, as it stands, it lost money because for some reason hiring the directors of the 21 Jump Street and The Lego Movie films made sense to someone. I suspected that was a bad idea as soon as it was announced!

 

[TravisR]

Imagine if the movie didn't have the behind the scenes drama and its budget stayed at about $125 million. Also imagine it was coming out Dec. 14, about four weeks from now. It may not have done Last Jedi numbers, but I bet it would have been a solid hit.

Ironically, Disney is still going to win because I think that Mary Poppins is going to be a massive hit due in part to having the Christmas release date.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Mary Poppins is going to be a massive hit due in part to having the Christmas release date.

I think Mary Poppins likely would have been a big hit even if Solo had taken Christmas and Mary had been relocated elsewhere. However, there is no question that the Christmas period will work to its advantage, for sure. Disney also knew they wanted Mary in this slot, which was probably part of why they refused to allow Solo to move there.

 

[JimmyO]

Exactly. I've always thought that if Solo: A Star Wars Story was viewed through the optic of not having to re-shuffle the entire production by firing Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and bringing in Ron Howard to re-shoot a majority of the film it would have been considered a success and we would have a sequel. But, as it stands, it lost money because for some reason hiring the directors of the 21 Jump Street and The Lego Movie films made sense to someone. I suspected that was a bad idea as soon as it was announced!

I'd have to disagree that if Lord and Miller weren't fired that the movie would have been a success and a sequel would have been green lit.

If Disney is to be believed, what Lord and Miller produced was terrible, and likely would have been a lesser film than what ended up being created. Or worse, damaging to the franchise.