SOLO: A Spoiler Story (contains spoilers)

[Slurktan]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

The reshoots seem to have added over $50-75 million to the film, taking it from $200 million to over $250 million. The film certainly didn't cost $500 million on the production budget alone, that's insane. $500 million is the bottom floor of what the film needs to take to break even considering marketing costs.

I didn't say it cost 500$ on the production budget.  It cost 250. What I said was then it cost 250$ million on advertising as for most hollywood big budget movies the advertising is as much as the budget.

[dooog]

Haven't seen it, though can't say I'm surprised at the poor box office showing. I don't see it as "fatigue" or a "fan boycott protest", I just think there's an awful lot of people that don't expect it to be any good, myself included. I'm fond of Star Wars and have watched nearly all of them at the theater, but I wouldn't consider myself a massive superfan.

Saw all the OT in the theater (when they re-released in the 90s)  Saw Phantom Menace twice. Wasn't too impressed but alright, they had to do some world building and set the tone, so I was optimistic for AOTC. Saw AOTC and hated it. Had zero expectations going into or ROTS, but the Anakin / Vader progression compelled me to go watch it.

Went to see TFA, didn't care for it but didn't completely hate it, they had to build the foundation for a new trilogy and there were enough loose ends and new characters to work a compelling story for TLJ.  Went to see TLJ and hated it.  Basically, I didn't come out from either TFA or TLJ thinking to myself that was worth the $15, and there's nothing compelling me to go watch future titles (as there was for the prequels).

Getting back to Solo and episode IX, I expect i'll catch them at some point, probably on tv some christmas or on an airplane but i've no interest in spending time and money to go see them. Casual fans are turned off by sub standard movies, while a great many intense Star Wars fans feel let down or perhaps even in some cases betrayed by what's being served up. And cinema lets face it is a social experience, most people go in groups or couples so if you alienate a portion of your fanbase, it's not only those people's ticket sales you lose but also all the others they would have encouraged to join them at the theater.

In a way it kind of feels like the end of a relationship that's hit the point where there's no longer any affection, hatred, passion or strong feelings one way or the other, I just don't care anymore.

[The Anti-Targ]

17 hours ago, mormont said:

?

In what way is Solo being 'punished for the sins of its immediate predecessors'? For one thing, this begs the question of whether those predecessors committed any sins. For another, it pre-emptively forgives any sins that Solo itself suffers from. And finally, it draws a link between the two for which there is no evidence and no need.

The slightly disappointing but not disastrous box office performance of a slightly disappointing but not disastrous film does not need to be explained away by reference to the three immensely successful films that preceded it.

To add. IMO if I thought Solo was failing because TLJ and TFA were just bad movies, and Solo is also a disappointment then I wouldn't really be bothered to write or say anything. But from what I've seen floating around on the internet there is a not insignificant amount of anti-SJW sentiment that's adding to the desire to see Star Wars in it's current form take a fall. And I feel like there's substance to this by the fact that I just read an article saying that Kelly Marie Tran has deleted, or suspended (don't know how these things work), her Instagram account because of the sexist and racist shit she's been getting from the deplorables among the Star Wars fanbase. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

Nowadays I mainly go to the cinema to watch special effects heavy movies. 

Storywise I did not execpt a lot from Solo and got what I expected. 

Solo also disappointed me on the SFX side of things though unlike Rouge One. 

I would rank it below the other 3 Disney SW movies. 

[mormont]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I mostly say that on the basis of the amount of shade being thrown at the whole Star Wars venture before and after Solo came out, and the glee with which some Star Wars fans on Youtube are celebrating the poor box office of Solo as a potential breaking point for the current top brass in control of Star Wars.

 

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

To add. IMO if I thought Solo was failing because TLJ and TFA were just bad movies, and Solo is also a disappointment then I wouldn't really be bothered to write or say anything. But from what I've seen floating around on the internet there is a not insignificant amount of anti-SJW sentiment that's adding to the desire to see Star Wars in it's current form take a fall. And I feel like there's substance to this by the fact that I just read an article saying that Kelly Marie Tran has deleted, or suspended (don't know how these things work), her Instagram account because of the sexist and racist shit she's been getting from the deplorables among the Star Wars fanbase. 

Oh dear. You've fallen into the trap here, and lost perspective.

No, these people are not the reason Solo's BO has been slightly disappointing. They are the same people, it seems, who said the same things and claimed the same 'victory' for their 'boycott' after TLJ. As I noted earlier, I hadn't even been aware that they were 'boycotting' Solo, and I doubt one person in ten thousand who was thinking of going to see Solo was aware of it either. Possibly not even one in a hundred thousand. If their 'boycott' (and I keep putting it in quotes because I don't believe that even half of the idiots involved actually boycotted the film) caused a drop of even 0.1% of the box office, I would be astonished. They may be patting themselves on the back, but that's because they're delusional. I see no reason why the rest of us should buy into that delusion.

The idea that their harassment of Kelly Marie Tran somehow proves there are a lot of these nasty little bullies is utterly absurd. You don't need more than a dozen dickheads to harass someone off social media. One can be enough. To suggest that this sickening behaviour somehow adds substance to the idea that the boycott has an impact is not only stupid, it's playing into the hands of the tiny number of jerks who do this. This is precisely what they want to do - persuade people that they are important by behaving in the most detestable manner possible. It's a childish tactic and I can't believe anyone would fall for it.

[red snow]

Mormont's on the ball with "don't empower the delusional trolls". I also don't buy their numbers (or their ability to actually boycott) with regards to the actual box office. I'm sure there are far more people decided to watch avengers again or prioritised Deadpool than for some weird anti sjw cause. Plus it doesn't even make sense (not that that's a driving force) - surely they should be supporting a star wars film with a white male lead, white female co-star, white male support/mentor and white male villain? 

[mormont]

On another note, one of the first things I said to the gf after the film is something I'm now seeing echoed elsewhere: that the film would have been more interesting if it had killed Beckett instead of Val, and allowed Thandie Newton to play the role of mentor to young Han.

Harrelson specialises in this sort of disreputable-mentor role these days, of course, and he didn't do a bad job of it, exactly: but this particular iteration of it felt so by-the-numbers and predictable. You see Woody Harrelson in the first scene and you could write the rest yourself. Allowing Thandie Newton a shot could surely have been more fertile ground. What do people think?

[Corvinus85]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

On another note, one of the first things I said to the gf after the film is something I'm now seeing echoed elsewhere: that the film would have been more interesting if it had killed Beckett instead of Val, and allowed Thandie Newton to play the role of mentor to young Han.

Harrelson specialises in this sort of disreputable-mentor role these days, of course, and he didn't do a bad job of it, exactly: but this particular iteration of it felt so by-the-numbers and predictable. You see Woody Harrelson in the first scene and you could write the rest yourself. Allowing Thandie Newton a shot could surely have been more fertile ground. What do people think?

It could have worked, but I thought the writing for Beckett was fairly solid from the beginning. He is the leader of the group, a badass guy with a reputation. We see his reputation being built up throughout the movie. And Han becomes his protegee and the guy who takes him out. Almost like how the Sith operate, but with different reasons behind it. Han taking him out was a major stepping stone for him, his true entrance in that world.

Now they could have had the exact same plot but with Val, if Val had been written as the leader of the group, and it would have been fine. Though I'm not sure how people would have reacted to Han killing Val at the end.

On the other hand, if you establish the characters as they were in the beginning, but then you kill off Beckett, the group leader, I think Val's mentorship of Han would have been very different. The way she was written didn't give me the impression that she was the backstabby, trust no one type like Beckett was.

Edit: I do fully agree that Thandie Newton deserved more screen time.

[dbunting]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

 

Oh dear. You've fallen into the trap here, and lost perspective.

No, these people are not the reason Solo's BO has been slightly disappointing. They are the same people, it seems, who said the same things and claimed the same 'victory' for their 'boycott' after TLJ. As I noted earlier, I hadn't even been aware that they were 'boycotting' Solo, and I doubt one person in ten thousand who was thinking of going to see Solo was aware of it either. Possibly not even one in a hundred thousand. If their 'boycott' (and I keep putting it in quotes because I don't believe that even half of the idiots involved actually boycotted the film) caused a drop of even 0.1% of the box office, I would be astonished. They may be patting themselves on the back, but that's because they're delusional. I see no reason why the rest of us should buy into that delusion.

The idea that their harassment of Kelly Marie Tran somehow proves there are a lot of these nasty little bullies is utterly absurd. You don't need more than a dozen dickheads to harass someone off social media. One can be enough. To suggest that this sickening behaviour somehow adds substance to the idea that the boycott has an impact is not only stupid, it's playing into the hands of the tiny number of jerks who do this. This is precisely what they want to do - persuade people that they are important by behaving in the most detestable manner possible. It's a childish tactic and I can't believe anyone would fall for it.

Absolutely true. I had never heard of a boycott until I saw it here after I went to the movie, so how effective was it really?

You know, those trolls that live on the internet, used to get punched in the face when we were kids. You ran your mouth and harassed someone either they took it and did nothing or they punched the troll and he learned not to run his mouth (i got suspended for punching him but oh well, I knew the risk). That his actions had consequences. Now there is nothing you can do to them. They can have 30 different login names and have all of them talking crap so it looks like a bigger group of people than it really is.

[Kalbear]

For the most part, Disney itself blames shitty marketing, and that seems reasonable to me. 

[Werthead]

15 hours ago, Slurktan said:

I didn't say it cost 500$ on the production budget.  It cost 250. What I said was then it cost 250$ million on advertising as for most hollywood big budget movies the advertising is as much as the budget.

This depends on the level of marketing. Solo had a very quiet, low-key marketing campaign compared to the previous Star Wars movies.

[Corvinus85]

I hope Disney looks at the long game with Solo. Reviews have been favorable, and word of mouth could result in good Blu-ray/digital sales and rentals in a few months. Cheap theaters or museums that shows movies a couple of months later than first release could also contribute some good numbers. We'll see.

[Darth Richard II]

6 hours ago, red snow said:

Mormont's on the ball with "don't empower the delusional trolls". I also don't buy their numbers (or their ability to actually boycott) with regards to the actual box office. I'm sure there are far more people decided to watch avengers again or prioritised Deadpool than for some weird anti sjw cause. Plus it doesn't even make sense (not that that's a driving force) - surely they should be supporting a star wars film with a white male lead, white female co-star, white male support/mentor and white male villain? 

They’re mad that Lando is pansexual. *rolls eyes*

[red snow]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

On another note, one of the first things I said to the gf after the film is something I'm now seeing echoed elsewhere: that the film would have been more interesting if it had killed Beckett instead of Val, and allowed Thandie Newton to play the role of mentor to young Han.

Harrelson specialises in this sort of disreputable-mentor role these days, of course, and he didn't do a bad job of it, exactly: but this particular iteration of it felt so by-the-numbers and predictable. You see Woody Harrelson in the first scene and you could write the rest yourself. Allowing Thandie Newton a shot could surely have been more fertile ground. What do people think?

There was that nice scene where Newton's character went from hating Solo to thinking he had potential, when she realised he was doing it for love/someone. That spark could have been built up for the rest of the film as a better mentor. Although I think that bond would have made the final act trickier as I'm not sure she would have betrayed him further into their relationship.

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

I hope Disney looks at the long game with Solo. Reviews have been favorable, and word of mouth could result in good Blu-ray/digital sales and rentals in a few months. Cheap theaters or museums that shows movies a couple of months later than first release could also contribute some good numbers. We'll see.

I think they'll wait and see. I'm sure they'll be happy if it becomes a regularly watched film on their streamin channel in a couple of years. There's a lot of classics out there that were flops at the cinema - Blade Runner, Shawshank redemption, Wizard of Oz. I'm not saying Solo is anywhere near as good as those films but I could see it winding up in the top tiers of the existing Star War films over time.

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

They’re mad that Lando is pansexual. *rolls eyes*

If that's the case I doubt that's the only thing about the character they don't like.

[The Anti-Targ]

19 hours ago, mormont said:

 

Oh dear. You've fallen into the trap here, and lost perspective.

No, these people are not the reason Solo's BO has been slightly disappointing. They are the same people, it seems, who said the same things and claimed the same 'victory' for their 'boycott' after TLJ. As I noted earlier, I hadn't even been aware that they were 'boycotting' Solo, and I doubt one person in ten thousand who was thinking of going to see Solo was aware of it either. Possibly not even one in a hundred thousand. If their 'boycott' (and I keep putting it in quotes because I don't believe that even half of the idiots involved actually boycotted the film) caused a drop of even 0.1% of the box office, I would be astonished. They may be patting themselves on the back, but that's because they're delusional. I see no reason why the rest of us should buy into that delusion.

The idea that their harassment of Kelly Marie Tran somehow proves there are a lot of these nasty little bullies is utterly absurd. You don't need more than a dozen dickheads to harass someone off social media. One can be enough. To suggest that this sickening behaviour somehow adds substance to the idea that the boycott has an impact is not only stupid, it's playing into the hands of the tiny number of jerks who do this. This is precisely what they want to do - persuade people that they are important by behaving in the most detestable manner possible. It's a childish tactic and I can't believe anyone would fall for it.

OK, I'll take my tin hat off. But I'm still allowed to worry that bad people are out to ruin stuff, and if we're not careful they might succeed.

Not sure how you are still suggesting the BO is only slightly disappointing. I would think the KPI for Solo would have been in the $700 millions. If it fails to get $500 million that's seriously bad, and it's looking like falling pretty short of $500 million. It also has a bad US:foreign ratio, and that's with the film releasing in China the same week as in the USA.

 

[Darth Richard II]

China doesnt like the Star Wars.

[unJon]

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

For the most part, Disney itself blames shitty marketing, and that seems reasonable to me. 

Did you mean to link something different? This story is a media analyst blaming the marketing not Disney itself blaming the marketing. 

[red snow]

Short of 500 million would be disappointing even if the original filming budget had been maintained.

I still feel like the cost of new director and reshoots is an unfair additional box office expectation. Yes, in an ideal world they'd get that back too but they should really only expect to get the original budget back. The fact they appeared to try and save on marketing probably made matters worse

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, red snow said:

Short of 500 million would be disappointing even if the original filming budget had been maintained.

I still feel like the cost of new director and reshoots is an unfair additional box office expectation. Yes, in an ideal world they'd get that back too but they should really only expect to get the original budget back. The fact they appeared to try and save on marketing probably made matters worse

It might not be fair, but when calculating the profits from a project you can't magically make unintended expenses disappear. However if looking at whether $X million dollars is a good box office gross for a movie you can ignore the production costs and just use other movies in the franchise or other movies in the genre as a benchmark. For Solo, you have the 3 Star Wars movies that preceded it, all of which grossed over $1Bn world-wide. So on that basis if Solo comes in under $500 million then it's a terrible result and a huge fall off for the Star Wars brand.

[RumHam]

From the moment they announced this movie I think a lot of people were skeptical/hostile. Either because they thought no one else should play Han or because it was totally unnecessary. I was surprised how much I liked it. But again the fact that I only bothered to see it today says something. Also if it were about some new character I'd probably be more excited about potential sequels. Though the guy did do a great Han.  

The few bits of Lord-Miller humor that made it into the film were great, and I really wish we'd gotten to see their version with the Micheal K. Williams lion-man Vos. Maybe one day (but only if someone leaks it Disney is not into director's cuts.) I get why Kennedy didn't want it to risk it being a comedy, but I think it was a mistake. 

I groaned a bit at all the "hey remember this?" stuff. Beckett wearing Lando's Jabba's palace getup was too much fan service for me. Though the 14 year old me did geek out a bit at the mention of Aurra Sing. If I remember right there were originally plans for her to be the prequel trilogy's Bobba Fett, and then she never appeared again after a brief cameo in Phantom Menace. (in live action that is, I think she was on Clone Wars.)