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

[Ethan Hunt]

So we're blaming this performance on the public being upset about the Lord/Miller firing, right?

[Mekanos]

Just now, Ethan Hunt said:

So we're blaming this performance on the public being upset about the Lord/Miller firing, right?

There's no hype.

[The Futurist]

People will come back for Ep 9 in mass for movie stars Adam Driver & John Boyega ...

 

[eddyxx]

3 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Episode 9 is not guaranteed to make 1 billion worldwide. Somebody had to say the truth, right?

1.2 B at least 

[LinksterAC]

I'm stunned.  Solo's global BO run looks like it might actually lose money for the studio.

 

This scenario was heretofore unimaginable for this franchise.  To me, that makes this one of the most interesting weekends of the year.  I never thought I'd see a Star Wars movie bomb.  Not even AOTC managed that.

 

We'll be discussing the nature and consequences of this failure for a long time. 

Edited May 27, 2018 by LinksterAC

[Sam]

14 minutes ago, bladels said:

Can't help wondering if Disney moving IW's money to help Solo and Wrinkle pass $100M (OW and DOM total) 

Would not surprise me. Going from 16.5M 3-day to 20.1M 4-day estimates mean they’re projecting a 37% Mon drop for IW.

 

That kind of projection is already ridiculous on a normal weekend, let alone a holiday weekend lol.

[MrGamer]

1 minute ago, CoolioD1 said:

fifty shades of grey, x-men origins wolverine, passion of the christ, the hangover part 2.

 

don't mind me, just listing the movies that had bigger openings than Solo: A Star Wars Story

A scene with Han making a table would've boasted its box office. 

[John Marston]

1 minute ago, filmnerdjamie said:

Not anymore it isn't. What is the hook to make us care?

 

 

it was already in trouble before Solo for exactly that reason. 

[FantasticBeasts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_bombs

Solo:A Star Wars Story	2018	$350,000,000	$343,200,000	$200,000,000	$200,000,000

 

[Alli]

1 minute ago, filmnerdjamie said:

Not anymore it isn't. What is the hook to make us care?

[sfran43]

 

[John Marston]

1 minute ago, eddyxx said:

1.2 B at least 

 

probably will drop more. I 1.1 billion is the optimistic scenario

 

[CoolioD1]

1 hour ago, Chewy said:

Is this the worst bomb in history? There are probably a handful of bigger money losers but in terms of a major franchise putting out a mega budget entry that falls into a volcano

 

Like, three billion $ grossers to this, is there any comparison?

i dunno, heaven's gate still sunk a studio and destroyed the "auteur blockbuster" method of filmmaking that defined the 70s leaving us open to the modern franchise landscape it's the original and the hardest to top.

[The Panda]

Yeah the only DC movie that did poorly was JL.  BvS probably should have raised some flags, as I’m sure they expected better, but it wasn’t like the movie lost the studio money.

 

Solo losing money is pretty dang bad.

 

In both cases we know people are willing to go see DC and SW in droves and so neither franchise is close dead or anything.  I think what it shows is that people won’t go see a movie based off franchise name alone, you still have to make something interesting and that sells.  In JL’s case it was marketed poorly, the movie wasn’t good and there was already skepticism about that film.  

 

In Solo’s case, the movie looked uninspired, right after two rather inspired blockbusters had just come out.  I loved the Last Jedi but I was in no rush to go out and see Solo, in fact if I wasn’t free when it came out I might have missed OW and been fine (this is somebody who set my schedule around the last three SW openings).  I could easily see people who are even more casual SW fans being willing to simply skip it entirely until Netflix.

 

Im also sure somebody will come and say “But MCU can sell on name alone!”  Which id also debunk.  Marvel’s just been run well enough that they’ve picked interesting properties to make or they’ve marketed those properties well.  Ant-Man’s their most niche thing and it so far has sold the worst of their characters. 

 

Im curious if Bumblebee will even be able to pass 100m come December.  Franchises are abundant enough now that people are fine giving them a pass.  

 

Anyways, I think franchises should start avoiding these easy spin-offs and prequels unless they’re a legitimately good idea.  If people didn’t care about Solo, why would they go see Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt movies? 

[The Futurist]

Kathy's spin about Lord/Miller Solo version was that it wasn't Star Wars-y enough ...

[Zakiyyah6]

2 minutes ago, Mekanos said:

Civil War numbers are looking pretty good for it right about now. 

It won't do Civil War numbers overseas. and it's not guaranteed to make up that shortfall domestically. What's stopping this next Star Wars movie from dropping another 300mil overseas? What is the hook that will keep it from dropping 50-100mil domestically? 

[YM!]

Real talk: What are the odds for IX under $500M? IX under $400M?

[LinksterAC]

2 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

So we're blaming this performance on the public being upset about the Lord/Miller firing, right?

So many variables go into a film's success or failure, it seems lazy to try to blame one thing.

 

That said, I'm looking at this performance from the perspective of the studio.  The state of the world's most arguably lucrative franchise is basically this:

1. The last main line film in the series was not universally loved, though it was financially successful
2. The latest entry in the franchise is looking like a legitimate loser 
3. The hardcore fanbase is upset and growing increasingly alienated

Love her or hate her, anyone who doesn't think KK is in hot water right now is kidding themselves.

[Daxtreme]

5 minutes ago, Pandamia! said:

Yeah the only DC movie that did poorly was JL.  BvS probably should have raised some flags, as I’m sure they expected better, but it wasn’t like the movie lost the studio money.

 

Solo losing money is pretty dang bad.

 

In both cases we know people are willing to go see DC and SW in droves and so neither franchise is close dead or anything.  I think what it shows is that people won’t go see a movie based off franchise name alone, you still have to make something interesting and that sells.  In JL’s case it was marketed poorly, the movie wasn’t good and there was already skepticism about that film.  

 

In Solo’s case, the movie looked uninspired, right after two rather inspired blockbusters had just come out.  I loved the Last Jedi but I was in no rush to go out and see Solo, in fact if I wasn’t free when it came out I might have missed OW and been fine (this is somebody who set my schedule around the last three SW openings).  I could easily see people who are even more casual SW fans being willing to simply skip it entirely until Netflix.

 

Im also sure somebody will come and say “But MCU can sell on name alone!”  Which id also debunk.  Marvel’s just been run well enough that they’ve picked interesting properties to make or they’ve marketed those properties well.  Ant-Man’s their most niche thing and it so far has sold the worst of their characters. 

 

Im curious if Bumblebee will even be able to pass 100m come December.  Franchises are abundant enough now that people are fine giving them a pass.  

 

Anyways, I think franchises should start avoiding these easy spin-offs and prequels unless they’re a legitimately good idea.  If people didn’t care about Solo, why would they go see Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt movies? 

 

That's the thing with prequels too -- no one's in any really hurry to go see them.

 

I went to see Black Panther partly because I had to see it before Infinity War came out. Had Black Panther been a prequel, I would have never went to see it (waiting for DVD instead)

 

That's just me but I think that, in general, no one's in a rush to see Solo. Add to that that it was seen as largely unnecessary, and that we live in a post-TLJ world, and yeah this shouldn't really be too surprising when you stop and think about it

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Daxtreme

[Barnack]

30 minutes ago, Hunch said:

The prequels actually had tons of practical effects, including lots of miniatures. It wasn't nearly as CGI as it seemed.

 

In the conversation for the most of any movie ever made for Miniatures I think specially phantom menace, if I remember correctly.

 

https://makezine.com/2015/10/07/the-surprising-practical-effects-of-the-star-wars-prequels/

 

The big issue is not CGI or not, it was much more green screen (with composition) or not I think. And for the next one use of not ready yet digital camera and other technic. But if they would have more CGI instead of miniature set added by composition I think it would have been better.