HAN SOLO MEMORIAL (day weekend) THREAD | Solo Flops Domestically with 83M/101M weekend. Spectacularly Bombs Overseas with 65M weekend.

[MovieMan89]

Just now, harrycaul said:

 

You can do whatever you want. It'll still be wrong to do it that way.

Take it up with Box Office Mojo, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Forbes, etc then not me. 

[GirafficPark]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ok, then in that case no one should ever call something a bomb again based on the box office performance. Since that's not going to happen though, let's not get into "arbitrary measure" debates and whatnot. 

Thats exactly what it is though. Movies are being made now that never get to the theatres at all, by the likes of Netflix and Amazon, their value comes from their existence as part of a library. With Disney also going the streaming service route the long term value in Solo is as part of a library. The same is happening with TV. Ratings are becoming ever more meaningless, which is why amazon picked up 'The Expanse'.

[harrycaul]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Take it up with Box Office Mojo, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Forbes, etc then not me. 

 

Sure, I believe their profitability analyses to be simplistic and often wrong too.

 

They just print them because people like to read them. They don't have much to do with reality.

[Valonqar]

4 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

1.6B - 1.4B = 200M 

2B - 1.3B = 700M

 

The drops aren’t even comparable. Also Ultron wasn’t a hated movie. TLJ was basically the “BVS” of Star Wars. It damaged the brand badly and now we are seeing the repercussions (108M). 

 

 

Ultron could afford to be divisive and not hurt AIW because these movies are largely stand alone. You can skip AoU and still follow AIW w/o problem. OTOH, ST is serialized af so you cannot expect IX story to be something completely different. It's going to pick up loose threads from TLJ even if they try to use a time jump to sweep some stuff under the rug. It won't be a new story but continuation of the one that people didn't like very much. That's a difference between MCU and the Saga. MCU trilogies are more often than not 3 standalone movies with loose shared universe connections. But it's always new villain, new supporting characters, new planets or cities, etc. Unlike the Saga that carries over elements that were not popular previously, something that MCU movies can easily discard. Example: Jane and Darcy out of Ragnarok, who cares? But while Finn and Rose were the most unpopular element of TLJ, even "good riddance" crowd would wonder where they've gone, if IX dropped them off screen, cause of continuity. Like, lack of Jane&Darcy increased my enthusiasm for Ragnarok 100%. But just thinking about Finn and Rose or either's return kills my interest in IX. That's MCU advantage. 

[MovieMan89]

Just now, GirafficPark said:

Thats exactly what it is though. Movies are being made now that never get to the theatres at all, by the likes of Netflix and Amazon, their value comes from their existence as part of a library. With Disney also going the streaming service route the long term value in Solo is as part of a library. The same is happening with TV. Ratings are becoming ever more meaningless, which is why amazon picked up 'The Expanse'.

This is a site about box office. We track and judge the box office. You can't hide behind "well it might be profitable in the future through other revenues" whenever a certain movie flops at the box office or you have to do it for all of them. And since I've never seen anyone here do it for all of them, it sounds awfully hypocritical. 

[GraceRandolph]

33 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

How do you explain Age of Ultron compared to the Avengers if each entry keeps increasing? Are you just ignoring that didn't happen?

Well that’s one movie out of 19. There are bound to be some slumps. The first avengers was obviously a huge cultural phenomenon. No one really expected the sequel to do as well. Kinda like no one thought TLJ was going to match TFA. However the drop for Ultron was only 100M (thanks BOT for correcting me) which is amazing. And now on top of that we have infinity war that’s heading towards 2B - and it didn’t need a 10 year break to do it.  

 

 

Either way the number 108M is all that needs to be said. For a Star Wars movie with a main beloved character it’s like laughable. Decreasing with every movie is one thing - but comepletely dropping off is very shocking. Let’s not even bother defending it. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by GraceRandolph

[GirafficPark]

3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Take it up with Box Office Mojo, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Forbes, etc then not me. 

Half the stuff they post is garbage, and thats being generous. At this point all they are doing to trying to generate interest in a marketing strategy thats dying more by the day.

[GraceRandolph]

17 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Lol 

 

Age of Ultron had a pretty divisive reception as well. 

Lol no. It was just a “meh” movie. It definitely didn’t cause any uproar or hate. 

[Barnack]

46 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Even making 400-450m you think it won't lose money on a 250 budget? 

At the time it was about a 500m WW very heavy domestic than 400m (400!!! really ????)

 

Very domestic heavy can be surprising to some, The other guy for example:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ferrellwahlberg2010.htm

Production Budget: $100 million

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$119,219,978	70.0%
+ Foreign:	$51,212,949	30.0%
= Worldwide:	$170,432,927

 

Not only didn't loose money, but made a 20m profit, but on movies close around the edge I do not have much of an opinion, even studio's does not know before it play out, but certainly if it would fall to a 400m WW performance it would probably loose money yes, because that would probably show an home entertainment rejection to come also.

 

But to give an extreme example a movie like Hitch:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hitch.htm

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$179,495,555	48.8%
+ Foreign:	$188,604,865	51.2%
= Worldwide:	$368,100,420

 

Made 490m in revenues with 0 from consumer product sales and would have turned a profit even with a 250m budget if Smith would have agree to push is bonus.

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Barnack

[harrycaul]

For the record, I think it's pointless for people not directly involved in a film's finances to speculate about its profitability. You don't know, you won't know, and you can't know.

 

You can guess if it makes you happy, and sometimes it makes me happy. But I'm not silly enough to think it has much to do with how it actually stands.

[MovieMan89]

TA4 next year is gonna be nice to put to rest these arguments once and for all that TLJ "had" to drop huge because TFA made 2b. IW will make 2B, and I'd bet money TA4 will get damn close if not pass it. Unless of course it's somehow very divisive and off putting to a large audience, ala TLJ. 

[John Marston]

Yeah a lot of theatrical flop could end up being profitable in the future. The point is a Star Wars film shouldn’t be flopping. Period 

[GirafficPark]

2 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

This is a site about box office. We track and judge the box office. You can't hide behind "well it might be profitable in the future through other revenues" whenever a certain movie flops at the box office or you have to do it for all of them. And since I've never seen anyone here do it for all of them, it sounds awfully hypocritical. 

I have seen people say it. For a Movie as marginal as this looks like it will be the after theatre revenue is very important indeed. It wouldnt save a monster like John Carter thats true.

 

The streaming market is very new though so right now we dont know how it will play out, but as an example look at 'Bright' or Altered carbon as a TV show. Neither are going to be directly 'profitable in the sense that they bring in $100M of new subs each, but they are considered successful because they are getting sequels.

[Firepower]

48 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

If ANH was SOO loved why did Empire drop just as hard?

Are you serious? It was completely different age, most of the sequels in 80s had huge drops from the original with very few exceptions. BO works completely differently nowadays.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Firepower

[CoolioD1]

1 hour ago, Alli said:

Mission Impossible 2 is trash and still made the most money. It's because the first one was beloved. MI3 payed the price for the second one sucking. IT dropped a lot

i think 2006-ish being tom cruise's publicity low point didn't help. that was the height of everyone thinking he was a fucking weirdo. he even didn't wanna promote the movie for a while because he was mad at viacom for the south park episode about him around that time.

[IceFire9yt]

You know you've got a truly legendary failure when the defense of a movie's box office performance start being 'well, can we truly call any movie a flop?'.

[Alli]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

At the time it was about a 500m WW very heavy domestic than 400m (400!!! really ????)

 

Very domestic heavy can be surprising to some, The other guy for example:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ferrellwahlberg2010.htm

Production Budget: $100 million

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:	$119,219,978	70.0%
+ Foreign:	$51,212,949	30.0%
= Worldwide:	$170,432,927

 

Not only didn't loose money, but made a 20m profit, but on movies close around the edge I do not have much of an opinion, even studio's does not know, but certainly if it would fall to a 400m WW performance it would probably loose money yes, because that would probably show an home entertainment rejection to come also.

 

 

 

 

But was the budget really 100M? Ive said it before, but some of these budgets are not realistic. i believe they are inflated.

[pepsa]

5 minutes ago, GirafficPark said:

Half the stuff they post is garbage, and thats being generous. At this point all they are doing to trying to generate interest in a marketing strategy thats dying more by the day.

Well honestly that is what all media is doing. Half of the stuff you read in papers is garbage. It's all about click bait, more views. 

[GirafficPark]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

TA4 next year is gonna be nice to put to rest these arguments once and for all that TLJ "had" to drop huge because TFA made 2b. IW will make 2B, and I'd bet money TA4 will get damn close if not pass it. Unless of course it's somehow very divisive and off putting to a large audience, ala TLJ. 

Its not relevant in any way whatsoever what TA4 makes compared to TA3. Couldnt be less relevant to SW if you tried.

[GirafficPark]

2 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Are you serious? It was completely different age, most of the sequels in 80s had huge drops from the original with very few exceptions. BO works completely differently nowadays.

Almost exactly the same drop happened for AOTC.