Current Events > Why is Solo considered a failure?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Solo's opening would be 10th best last year and 11th best the year before.

For a movie that replaced it's Directors halfway thru and reshot half of it, that is phenomenal.

Also, released against the NBA playoffs, UEFA Championship, and Deadpool 2. These things really dropped attendence.

People who expected 160 mil were fucking crazy. Estimates are based off NOTHING and not usually very indicative of reality.
---

Because Kathleen Kennedy is a horrible producer.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Solo's opening would be 10th best last year and 11th best the year before.

For a movie that replaced it's Directors halfway thru and reshot half of it, that is phenomenal.

Also, released against the NBA playoffs, UEFA Championship, and Deadpool 2. These things really dropped attendence.

People who expected 160 mil were fucking crazy. Estimates are based off NOTHING and not usually very indicative of reality.

No estimates usually account for all those factors.

Because it cost double of what it should have and will need a hefty return to make a decent profit.

It's actually performing even worse in foreign markets. Assuming a 50% drop from last weekend to this weekend it might not even turn a profit at all.
---

It didn't make infinity billion dollars on Thursday night.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

For a movie that replaced it's Directors halfway thru and reshot half of it, that is phenomenal.

Makes me think of Alien 3

Man the backstory and behind the scenes of that movie is more entertaining than the poopy movie itself.
---

same reason infinity war flopped
---

Also, Solo only got like 3 and a half months of advertising. Force Awakens got almost a year and Last Jedi and Rogue One got 8 months each.
---

I liked it, thought it was pretty good. I kind of want to see it again but I won't because I never do that.

I've seen some people saying the biggest problem with it is "it doesn't need to exist" but what action/comedy movie does? It's a fun movie, what more do you want?
---

It isnt going to turn a profit, at least, not like they want. They might break even after toys and dvd sales
---

dirtycommunist posted...

I've seen some people saying the biggest problem with it is "it doesn't need to exist" but what action/comedy movie does? It's a fun movie, what more do you want?

Yeah that's prolly one of the stupidest complaints I've heard about anything tbh
---

Budget was 250 million and thus far it has done over 200 at the box office. It was only a 3 month advertising campaign so I can't assume double for ad... let's say it is 400 mil total. Halfway there within less than a week.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Budget was 250 million and thus far it has done over 200 at the box office. It was only a 3 month advertising campaign so I can't assume double for ad... let's say it is 400 mil total. Halfway there within less than a week.

Giving it a generous 50% drop this weekend means only an additional 100 million. If the drop is higher then it's not even gonna break even.
---

It set records for a memorial day weekend. A time which nobody really goes out to watch a movie anyway. But there are two major factors here.

1. Negative feedback from critics and casuals. Rotten Tomatoes is just the tip of the iceberg.

2. Isn't making the money back that was spent to make it. $140 million sounds like a lot, until you realize it cost $250 million to make it, and that's before marketting. Compare it to Deadpool 2, which internationally made over $500 million, and only cost $110 million.

Disney spent 4 billion to get this franchise. They are in the red both for Solo and for the franchise at large. They are currently making these films at a loss.

It's considered a failure because it is. Unless each person that likes the movie is willing to go back out and rewatch it at least a million times each, those numbers aren't going to change.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Budget was 250 million and thus far it has done over 200 at the box office. It was only a 3 month advertising campaign so I can't assume double for ad... let's say it is 400 mil total. Halfway there within less than a week.

Youre including international numbers, of which they will get a much smaller cut of. Domestic numbers have a much bigger impact.

250million production budget
100+ million advertising (who really knows)

This means it would need to make 700 million just to break even.

It's not going to turn a profit for Disney at all. It's a bomb.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

250million production budget
100+ million advertising (who really knows)

This means it would need to make 700 million just to break even.

It's not going to turn a profit for Disney at all. It's a bomb.

Isn't that 350 million? Are you supposed to make double your operation AND advertising budget to turn a profit?

They should have pushed release to August. Too much shit going on right now.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

250million production budget
100+ million advertising (who really knows)

This means it would need to make 700 million just to break even.

It's not going to turn a profit for Disney at all. It's a bomb.

Isn't that 350 million? Are you supposed to make double your operation AND advertising budget to turn a profit?

They should have pushed release to August. Too much shit going on right now.

Just making the budget back isn't breaking even. No studio would consider that a success.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

250million production budget
100+ million advertising (who really knows)

This means it would need to make 700 million just to break even.

It's not going to turn a profit for Disney at all. It's a bomb.

Isn't that 350 million? Are you supposed to make double your operation AND advertising budget to turn a profit?

They should have pushed release to August. Too much shit going on right now.

Yes. Cinemas take half of the money.

RoseIsHorriblle posted...

Cinemas take half of the money.

i don't think that's true. i believe studios get a majority of the ticket sales at the start and over time take a lower % of the sales. i thought it was something like 75-80% of the sales in the first ~2-3 weeks went to studios
---

Because people have begun to realize that all the new Star Wars movies are terrible so their hype for yet another spinoff went into a death spiral.
---

If anything I think this just proves that Star Wars should just be a once a year thing each December.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

If anything I think this just proves that Star Wars should just be a once a year thing each December.

Nah, it should have ended in 1983.
---

RoseIsHorriblle posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

250million production budget
100+ million advertising (who really knows)

This means it would need to make 700 million just to break even.

It's not going to turn a profit for Disney at all. It's a bomb.

Isn't that 350 million? Are you supposed to make double your operation AND advertising budget to turn a profit?

They should have pushed release to August. Too much shit going on right now.

Yes. Cinemas take half of the money.

No they don't. Cinemas don't get much, which is why the food is so expensive, they have to make it up with that.
---

A failure for Disney
---

LethalAffinity posted...

Just making the budget back isn't breaking even.

Isn't that the literal definition of breaking even?

Herugrim posted...

Disney spent 4 billion to get this franchise. They are in the red both for Solo and for the franchise at large. They are currently making these films at a loss.

Tbqh... No. If Disney hasn't made a profit on buying Lucasfilm yet, they will soon. You have to keep in mind the profits include merchandise, which makes way more than the movies ever will.

I have heard that most major films have a budget and then the advertising blitz is almost the same as the budget itself... So usually you gotta double the budget.

Solo only got 3 months of ads though, so I doubt it cost 250 mil in advertising
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

Just making the budget back isn't breaking even.

Isn't that the literal definition of breaking even?

No because the budget doesn't count the marketing cost.

OctilIery posted...

Herugrim posted...

Disney spent 4 billion to get this franchise. They are in the red both for Solo and for the franchise at large. They are currently making these films at a loss.

Tbqh... No. If Disney hasn't made a profit on buying Lucasfilm yet, they will soon. You have to keep in mind the profits include merchandise, which makes way more than the movies ever will.

Also the videogame licensing. As much as you might hate BF1 and 2, I assume they made bank on that.
---

Disney hasn't done shit with Star Wars video games. It's really weird.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

If anything I think this just proves that Star Wars should just be a once a year thing each December.

Nah. A lot of people just werent interested in a Han Solo spin off. Also the movie got a lot of bad press before release. Then you have a group of people boycotting Star Wars after TLJ.

Respawn and EA Vancouver have games in the offing... but yeah.
---

Rimmer_Dall posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

Just making the budget back isn't breaking even.

Isn't that the literal definition of breaking even?

Literally, yes. But if a movie studio shells out $250m to make a movie and their return is exactly $250m, would said studio really want to call that a success?
---

To me, a failure loses money. Lots of money. Breaking even is not ideal but it's not detrimental either.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

Literally, yes. But if a movie studio shells out $250m to make a movie and their return is exactly $250m, would said studio really want to call that a success?

But he didnt say success. He said break even.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

To me, a failure loses money. Lots of money. Breaking even is not ideal but it's not detrimental either.

Maybe so, but if you're a massive corporation with shareholders and your movie fails to turn any profit, then it's a massive failure.

If I made any kind of financial investment and only made my investment back, I would personally consider that a failed investment.
---

Ryangrad posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

Literally, yes. But if a movie studio shells out $250m to make a movie and their return is exactly $250m, would said studio really want to call that a success?

But he didnt say success. He said break even.

If it's not a success, it's a failure.

Breaking even in the movie industry is failing.
---

The funny thing is that I bet you anything the Phil Lord and Chris Miller version of the film would have performed better.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

To me, a failure loses money. Lots of money. Breaking even is not ideal but it's not detrimental either.

The only reason big studios make movies is to make money. So if you dont make a profit then it failed to accomplish their goal.
---

Bandit_Keith posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

To me, a failure loses money. Lots of money. Breaking even is not ideal but it's not detrimental either.

The only reason big studios make movies is to make money. So if you dont make a profit then it failed to accomplish their goal.

Yeah, a movie that had massive problems, reshoots and multiple directors fails to make a lot of money? I will take my investment back on that news rather than losing money
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

If it's not a success, it's a failure.

Breaking even in the movie industry is failing.

Didnt say otherwise. Breaking even is failing. Even if they broke even with the budget+marketing+distribution they would still consider it a failure. Reread the original quote. That person said making the budget back isnt breaking even. It is breaking even. The problem is that breaking even is still failing.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

The funny thing is that I bet you anything the Phil Lord and Chris Miller version of the film would have performed better.

Well it would have at least cost a lot less to use that version of the film. They reshot an awful lot of the film. They say about 70% of it. Though they also say that a very large portion of the footage Lord and Miller shot was completely unusable.

IDK, but it sounds like Kathleen Kennedy should have done a better job hiring a director who would make the movie she wanted to make. This isn't the first time there has been director issues with her SW movies.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Yeah, a movie that had massive problems, reshoots and multiple directors fails to make a lot of money? I will take my investment back on that news rather than losing money

Well, thats fine for you and your movie studios. Not for everyone else, though. Also, that doesnt negate it being a failure. Just lessens the degree.
---

Doesn't the movie sorta set up something as well? Even if it breaks even, at least the set up could help later right? I mean...the ending seemed so open.

Ryangrad posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

If it's not a success, it's a failure.

Breaking even in the movie industry is failing.

Didnt say otherwise. Breaking even is failing. Even if they broke even with the budget+marketing+distribution they would still consider it a failure. Reread the original quote. That person said making the budget back isnt breaking even. It is breaking even. The problem is that breaking even is still failing.

wait what original quote
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

wait what original quote

Read the first thing you quoted in this topic. Both the original poster and then their response. That was the conversation you responded to.
---

Ryangrad posted...

Muffinz0rz posted...

wait what original quote

Read the first thing you quoted in this topic. Both the original poster and then their response. That was the conversation you responded to.

It sounds like semantics tbh, hence why I boiled it down to a flat $250m all-encompassing number for "budget," which, yes, in the movie industry, only making back the total budget (or, breaking even), is a failure.

It sounds like we're in agreement here, what point do I seem to be missing?
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

It sounds like semantics tbh, hence why I boiled it down to a flat $250m all-encompassing number for "budget," which, yes, in the movie industry, only making back the total budget (or, breaking even), is a failure.

It sounds like we're in agreement here, what point do I seem to be missing?

I was just pointing out that the person never made the claim that you were putting on them. That person was just correctly stating that it was the definition of breaking even. They never stated that breaking even was a success.

Its more pedantic than semantic. Which that sentence in itself is as well.
---

Muffinz0rz posted...

same reason infinity war flopped

You cannot compare the people who said this movie flopped with the people who said the same thing about IW. With out adjusting for inflation the Prequel movies are on pace to do better.
---