Jump to content

Water Bottle

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

Recommended Posts

I am shocked. I was pretty pessimistic about this movie, but that's another level.

 

Star Wars is a big brand, which made $ 1bi + in the last 3 movies.
It was a milestone in the history of cinema.
It has garnered several fans in its 41-year history.
Han Solo is an extremely relevant character in the franchise.
Despite the problems movie had in production, these numbers are shameful.
I can not remember the last time a big  brand movie failed at this level.

 

Is this the greatest failure in BO history?

Edit: (greatest failure like a huge franchise movie doing ridiculous numbers)

 

Edited by Litio
Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 minutes ago, filmnerdjamie said:

Amusing to hear a Deadpool 2 fanboy in denial tell me (on Twitter, just now) that most big tentpoles drop off 70% in their second weekend. Uh, what?!

The thing that I've learned is that massive drops are only a problem with fanboys when they dislike a film. They can't see straight when they like a film. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





9 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

Wow, just wow Mr Scott Mendelson. Do you really believe Solo is making 543 million worldwide with that overseas performance?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/05/27/box-office-solo-a-star-wars-story-bombs-with-148m-global-weekend/#ed023f2221f0

He said that it would be the worst case scenario :mellow: 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Community Manager
3 minutes ago, Litio said:

I am shocked. I was pretty pessimistic about this movie, but that's another level.

 

Star Wars is a big brand, which made $ 1bi + in the last 3 movies.
It was a milestone in the history of cinema.
It has garnered several fans in its 41-year history.
Han Solo is an extremely relevant character in the franchise.
Despite the problems movie had in production, these numbers are shameful.
I can not remember the last time a big  brand movie failed at this level.

 

Is this the greatest failure in history?

 

Nah. It almost didn't lead to Disney closing so it can't be the greatest failure in history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

It's funny how some of the trades are still attempting to extrapolate a 500-600m WW finish from this opening as if they're really that clueless about how box office works at all. Man, the denial/delusion is REAL. 

Incompetence is real, most BOT regulars know more about box office than these " journalists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites





3 hours ago, Eastwood47 said:

Fans of this series have short memories. From a business perspective Lucas was brilliant with how he masterminded the prequels. The first thing he did is micro-manage the budget so all of these came in at an extremely low cost, even for their day. I doubt he spent much on marketing because he had so many deals with licensed goods, those likely footed the bills. But more importantly he understood how to rebuild anticipation. People can hoot and holler all they want about Phantom Menace today, but the majority of fans sucked on the bone marrow of that film when it came out.

 

Lucas waited for technology to reach a point where he could make the stories he wanted to tell and rebuilt demand through remastering and updating effects on the old trilogy. So by the time Phantom Menace came out, people were quitting or getting fired from their jobs just to sit on a sidewalk and wait for this movie. The Force Awakens played to a somewhat similar response but perhaps without as many career suicides since fans had learned their lesson. But again that was more Lucas' doing than Disney because he was in the midst of rebuilding the brand again when he threw up his arms and sold the franchise ( another brilliant move on his part). 

 

Now Disney is stuck with the bill and what on the surface looked like a no brainer for success, is quickly becoming a financial liability because they're making them at a cookie cutter pace which the public never desired. And while some want to point to the prequels as the low water mark of the franchise, truth is Disney has spent more than double the money, and tripled the output of product, but remains without any Oscar award and carries the shame of the first commercial failure in franchise history.  

 

The most important component to the Lucas Empire was the one element Disney didn't get in the purchase - Marketing and Building Demand 101. There's not a story in this franchise that is brilliant on paper, so I'm not sure where you get the quality compare. What is sadly missing from Disney is customer awareness, branding to demand, and budgetary discipline. Disney is making these like one of their cartoons and the demand is drying up. Solo is just symptomatic of that problem. 

 

The prequels were extremely profitable, sold a boat load of merchandise, and exposed a new generation to the brand. The Disney era movies are divisive, drying up consumer demand in film and merchandise, and have now added a financial flop to their list of growing problems. George Lucas is sitting pretty with his choices. Disney and Star Wars? Not so much. You can have your story argument. I'll take the Lucas legacy which is far more impressive than Disney Wars. 

...the argument that I was refuting came from someone saying the prequels were better than TLJ as films. As in, quality-wise they were better. I disagreed and gave my reasons why. That's where I'm getting the quality compare: because they are all movies, and they can be judged as movies.

 

Also, fans did suck on the bone marrow when the film came out...... and then they quickly turned on the bone marrow, told it to go fuck itself when AOTC came out and it sucked as bad as its predecessor did (dropping big time from TPM as a result and being not just aggressively divisive like TLJ, but outright disliked), and only got excited again when ROTS promised them the story they actually wanted from the beggining (the origin of Darth Vader). Now granted, I'll give you this: that's still a better position than what Disney find themselves on with Episode IX, and none of those movies outright bombed like Solo did (and Solo itself was a really bad idea from the get go), but still, you're acting like the Lucas legacy regarding the prequels is mad impressive, and, well, I agree that it has merit superior to the Disney regime in a number of areas..... but the movies he crafted are all remembered in ironic laughter despite all being big hits at the time. I'm not sure up until what extent is that wholly impressive.

Edited by MCKillswitch123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Water Bottle said:

Nah. It almost didn't lead to Disney closing so it can't be the greatest failure in history. 

I said """I can not remember the last time a big brand movie failed at this level."""

I mean in history of the box office. I do not remember a movie from another big franchise that made those awful numbers. This failure will foul the image of the franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





13 minutes ago, REC said:

Basically zero demand for this movie.  Mediocre WOM is the kicker.  How fast can theaters drop it?

The overseas auds didn't care at all. INCREDIBLES II is going to hit it hard.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Litio said:

I am shocked. I was pretty pessimistic about this movie, but that's another level.

 

Star Wars is a big brand, which made $ 1bi + in the last 3 movies.
It was a milestone in the history of cinema.
It has garnered several fans in its 41-year history.
Han Solo is an extremely relevant character in the franchise.
Despite the problems movie had in production, these numbers are shameful.
I can not remember the last time a big  brand movie failed at this level.

 

Is this the greatest failure in history?

I said this in OS thread but I'll repeat it here cause I think it's relevant. MCU has the luxury of boosting their lower-grossing individual franchise's profile by putting those characters in team movies. AM makes the least of Phase 2 movies? No problem. Put him in CW. That increases the profile. AM&TW will guaranteed increase from AM. These characters are in for a long haul. But look at Solo. They cannot increase Solo's profile in the Main Saga cause - gasp - the character is dead! Lets say young Solo has trouble lifting off a franchise. You boost his profile by elderly version's appearance in the Saga, maybe even insert a flashback of new young Solo somewhere for crossover. May not work but the point is that SW doesn't even have this option anymore cause they killed Han in the first new movie. And then decided to make a series of young Han movies without an option to fall back on older Han's popularity if they had to. And now it seems they are adamant to obliterate all Skywalkers without creating iconic non-Skywalkers to carry on. I'm sorry but if they think Rian "Rose, Holdo, DJ" Johnson is going to give them those characters worthy of succeeding Han, Luke, Leia, Vader...yikes. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites













  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.