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

[dpippel]

I'm getting a strong feeling of deja vu here...

 

[TravisR]

I just don't get this argument that Memorial Day is such a terrible weekend to open. Seven movies have made more than $100 million on that weekend. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, with the REAL Han Solo, made $126 million over the four days.

That was over a decade ago and audiences have changed. People are more interested in things other than going to the movies on the holiday weekend and if that isn't the case, why don't studios open their BIGGEST movies on Memorial Day any more? You can bet that after Solo, no studio is going to make that mistake for a long time.

Heck, Solo made over $100 million over the four days. The problem is that it plunged like a rock afterward. And that's primarily because audiences weren't buying what it was selling.

It didn't help that EVERY story about Solo was how terrible Solo did with a measly $100 million opening. When people hear that, they stay away.


As wrong as some people find my opinion on the opening of Solo, I'm staggered that they think that there's any other way to look at it.

 

[Tommy R]

It didn't help that EVERY story about Solo was how terrible Solo did with a measly $100 million opening. When people hear that, they stay away.


As wrong as some people find my opinion on the opening of Solo, I'm staggered that they think that there's any other way to look at it.

THIS! There's no way to know how good/bad Solo would have done on any other weekend of the year, but I think the power of it's negative press (for making a measly $100M) has more of an effect on the masses than given credit. Everyone I know who saw it LOVED the movie, but the positive voices get lost in the storm of "It's not going to break even, which means it's a terrible movie and no one wanted to see it!!!!" Regardless of the fact that it's not breaking even business-wise because of how the budget was higher than it needed to be and apparently the budget to promote movies are as big as the budgets to make the movies themselves (I will never understand this). I couldn't tell you how many times a random movie opens at $30-$50 million, and it gets all sorts of positive press as if everyone on Earth is just rushing out to see this great new movie, but then "no one went to see Solo" based on it's opening weekend take.

 

[Malcolm R]

That was over a decade ago and audiences have changed. People are more interested in things other than going to the movies on the holiday weekend and if that isn't the case, why don't studios open their BIGGEST movies on Memorial Day any more? You can bet that after Solo, no studio is going to make that mistake for a long time.

That's on the studios as they ruined the date. It used to be that the first of the big summer movies came out on Memorial Day weekend. It was a major event weekend that kicked off the "summer movie" season, and there was a lot of pent-up demand which would almost guarantee a large opening. But now they've stretched that out and open "summer" movies all through April and early May, so there's nothing special about Memorial Day weekend anymore. It's just another weekend.

 

[holtge]

I think it depends on the movie being released.

 

[SamT]

So, Lord and Miller won a Golden Globe for their last work. Also critically acclaimed and people like it. Doesn't it make people who fired them look silly? God forbid if they make a good successful Star Wars movie, we have to stop them! I'm curious to know what was their last flop. Still can not accept any excuse they give because they were trying to protect their top-notch work. "What's your last name? Whoooat, you have no name? I put down Solo"

 

[Jake Lipson]

So, Lord and Miller won a Golden Globe for their last work. Also critically acclaimed and people like it. Doesn't it make people who fired them look silly?

No.

Their success with Spider-Man is well-deserved but that doesn't mean they were the right fit for what Lucasfilm wanted to do. Spider-Man and Solo are two different properties for different studios produced in different mediums that are handled in different ways tonally and stylistically and have different needs. They don't correlate to each other. It's possible for Lord and Miller to be right for Spider-Man and wrong for Solo, and that's what happened. Kathleen Kennedy never said that they aren't talented filmmakers. They just didn't see eye-to-eye with her and the writers on this project.

I can't believe we're still talking about this.

Also, for the record, Lord and Miller did not direct Spider-Verse. They are producers, and Lord co-wrote it. But the directors are Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Don't take the bait...

 

[Tino]

Don't take the bait...

 

[Tommy R]

No.

Their success with Spider-Man is well-deserved but that doesn't mean they were the right fit for what Lucasfilm wanted to do. Spider-Man and Solo are two different properties for different studios produced in different mediums that are handled in different ways tonally and stylistically and have different needs. They don't correlate to each other. It's possible for Lord and Miller to be right for Spider-Man and wrong for Solo, and that's what happened. Kathleen Kennedy never said that they aren't talented filmmakers. They just didn't see eye-to-eye with her and the writers on this project.

Well, a different way you could look at it, is that what Lucasfilm "wanted" ended up not making enough money. Perhaps whatever Lord and Miller were doing with Solo would've added that extra element that could have elevated the overall quality and relatability to the masses. As much as I like Solo, my chief complaint was how by-the-numbers it was. I would have liked to have seen what Lord and Miller had in mind, and perhaps a better critical reception would have resulted with such a version, and perhaps would have resulted in a better box office performance (and would've kept the budget way lower without the costly reshoots, which is a big reason why, business-wise, it's considered a failure.) All just speculation for sure, but interesting to think about.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Lord and Miller were supposed to be working from the same script that Ron Howard used. They diverged from it in ways that were too significant for Kennedy's liking, but it was the same script. This is what Lucasfilm wanted to make, and therefore it is the only version of Solo that they were going to make. Like it or not, it's ultimately up to Kathleen Kennedy (and Bob Iger and Alan Horn.) Speculation to the contrary isn't realistic given the power structure at Lucasfilm and the lengths to which they will go to protect this property.

I personally doubt that seeing whatever Lord and Miller were doing would have made a substantial difference to Solo's bottom line, especially if it was bad enough to get them fired. I absolutely believe that Kennedy would not have fired them if they were giving her something she thought she could release. That's not a publicity nightmare one goes through unless it is absolutely necessary.

I think the public at large just didn't want to see a Han Solo origin story movie with someone who is not Harrison Ford filling the role, and it has nothing to do with who directed it or didn't direct it.

 

[Tommy R]

I think the public at large just didn't want to see a Han Solo origin story movie with someone who is not Harrison Ford filling the role

This is the kind of statement that I don't really buy into. Wikipedia says that Solo grossed a world-wide total of $392M. People indeed went and saw this movie. Wikipedia also says Into the Spider-verse is at $275M world-wide (yeah, I know it's still playing, but isn't it almost done making the bulk of it's take?). Now I understand the "business" side of it made Solo a failure, but an absolute ass-load of people went out and paid tickets for it. If Disney and Lucasfilm miss-judged and puts everything under the "Star Wars" banner into a box of having to make a billion dollars to make an acceptable profit, then that's on them. I'm just under the belief that had Lord and Miller been given free reign to interpret the script the way they wanted (and perhaps with a smaller budget) a "Solo" film could have been financially successful. And I'm also fully aware that they shouldn't be surprised at being fired, whatever it was they were doing with the movie. But maybe just maybe in this case it would have been a better film and have clicked more with the public at large.

 

[Jake Lipson]

If Disney and Lucasfilm miss-judged and puts everything under the "Star Wars" banner into a box of having to make a billion dollars to make an acceptable profit, then that's on them.

That's Disney's strategy. Disney doesn't make mid-range movies. They make big event films with big budgets, and they expect big returns. They don't want films that make $392 million, especially not from the Star Wars brand. It is the business strategy Disney has employed for a number of years. According to Iger, smaller-budgeted films will be exclusives for the streaming service, but Star Wars is not going to be one of those.

You are correct that a lot of people went to see Solo, but the grosses being substantially lower than any other Star Wars film indicates that it failed to connect with as wide of an audience as the other films. I think its gross was powered by diehard Star Wars fans who will show up every time, and what's missing is the mass appeal to general audiences who are more casual in their fandom.

Also, I would not assume that Spider-Verse is done yet. It has been holding very well, and its Golden Globe win is bound to fuel interest in it. It is now a major player for the Oscar too, which will also extend its time in theaters. There is also a lack of major new product targeting that audience for the next month or so. I think it can stick around and continue to make money at least until The Lego Movie 2 opens in February, if not longer. But Spider-Verse carried a different budget and a different set of expectations than Solo did, in spite of both having Lord and Miller involved.

With regard to Solo, I still think what I thought before and expressed in my previous post, so we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Tino]

I think the public at large just didn't want to see a Han Solo origin story movie with someone who is not Harrison Ford filling the role, and it has nothing to do with who directed it or didn't direct it.

Again...Exactly.

 

[Tino]

but an absolute ass-load of people went out and paid tickets for it.

I disagree. $392 million world wide is OK but is not an “ass-load” of people by any means imo. I would argue that it’s the least amount of tickets sold for any Star Wars film. And it all goes back to audience apathy for a Han Solo film.

 

[TravisR]

I disagree. $392 million world wide is OK but is not an “ass-load” of people by any means imo. I would argue that it’s the least amount of tickets sold for any Star Wars film. And it all goes back to audience apathy for a Han Solo film.

Let's say an average ticket price is about $10, that means almost 40,000,000 people saw Solo. Even if that's less than any other Star Wars movie or other successful franchises, it's still 40 million people and that's alot in my book.

 

[Jake Lipson]

$392 million worldwide would be a great gross for a mid-budget smaller-scale film like a romantic comedy or horror film. For Star Wars, it's not much in the grand scheme of thing. 39.5% of Solo's domestic gross came on the first weekend, which is a huge number. The other recent Star Wars films films, which all opened higher, didn't have that high of a percentage on opening weekend.

The Force Awakens, which had the highest opening weekend of all time up to that point, only did 26.5% of its final gross on opening. That indicates that the people who did see Solo came out in large numbers at the beginning of the run and made it extremely frontloaded. The people who do that are the diehard fans of the franchise who will see anything with the Star Wars name on it. The rest of the world's moviegoers simply didn't care.

In some ways, it's good for Disney to know that servicing only the hardcore fan base will get you $392 million worldwide. That piece of information will help them decide what they want to do going forward. But they paid a heavy price to get it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

it's still 40 million people and that's alot in my book.

It is and it isn't. 40 million is a big number, but not in comparison to the other Star Wars movies. It's just not enough of the people who saw the previous films in order to make this worthwhile for Disney versus the numbers they were getting from the episodic films, or even Rogue One.https://www.hometheaterforum.com/co...ar-wars-story-2018.357757/reply?quote=4689961

 

[Malcolm R]

$392 million worldwide would be a great gross for a mid-budget smaller-scale film like a romantic comedy or horror film. For Star Wars, it's not much in the grand scheme of thing.

Yes, The Nun grossed almost the same amount worldwide vs. a budget of $22m.

This gross is an embarrassment for SW any way you view it.

 

[Tommy R]

That's Disney's strategy. Disney doesn't make mid-range movies. They make big event films with big budgets, and they expect big returns. They don't want films that make $392 million, especially not from the Star Wars brand. It is the business strategy Disney has employed for a number of years. According to Iger, smaller-budgeted films will be exclusives for the streaming service, but Star Wars is not going to be one of those.

You are correct that a lot of people went to see Solo, but the grosses being substantially lower than any other Star Wars film indicates that it failed to connect with as wide of an audience as the other films. I think its gross was powered by diehard Star Wars fans who will show up every time, and what's missing is the mass appeal to general audiences who are more casual in their fandom.

Also, I would not assume that Spider-Verse is done yet. It has been holding very well, and its Golden Globe win is bound to fuel interest in it. It is now a major player for the Oscar too, which will also extend its time in theaters. There is also a lack of major new product targeting that audience for the next month or so. I think it can stick around and continue to make money at least until The Lego Movie 2 opens in February, if not longer. But Spider-Verse carried a different budget and a different set of expectations than Solo did, in spite of both having Lord and Miller involved.

With regard to Solo, I still think what I thought before and expressed in my previous post, so we'll agree to disagree.

I don't know if I'd say I disagree with anything you're saying outright. I guess my general point is the bat-shit-insanity that a movie studio can be "disappointed" with $392M and how often they put themselves in these situations. I get the actual numbers adding up to a financial flop, (though I still don't understand how the budgets to promote these movies are so high). But banking on phenomenon caliber returns? That's just crazy!