Tuesday Numbers: Solo "Could hit around $7.4" per Asgard 2

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

I agree that those movies hurt Solo, BUT if Solo had been better, quality-wise, and marketed better...it wouldn't have mattered...

 

A Star Wars movie should have succeeded in any environment and make everything else suffer instead of suffering itself and that would have happened 2 year's ago it is 100% true, competition would have mattered all the franchise ads type/production placement/media attention would have been SW, it would have not mattered much. But now that Star Wars lost is big dog status, event movie choose it over other option, it maybe mattered more than expected.

 

The big direct competition for Solo those 4 days made 76.2m, last year big Pirates competition (gotg 2, baywatch, alien Co) made 50m, X-men days of future past direct competition made like 50m.

 

This year memorial weekend was still much bigger than last year (226 vs 180.5), by the same token it was way smaller than X-men Future Past/Furious 6/Hangover 2 year's (232m, 314m and 276m) so it had lot of room to do more.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Barnack

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, LonePirate said:

Just because Disney says one thing publicly, it does not mean they do not believe something different in private.

Nor are they saying that it is all the reason even in public either. But yes obviously there is no baring to what some exec say in a PR move vs what a what when wrong study and polling of audience, etc... will conclude in a month.

 

For example Spider Man 2 under performed in Germany versus other market, so Sony asked a specialized marketing firm to make a study to try to understand why, asking directly 977 German why they went or didn't went to see Spider Man 2 at the cinema, with an estimated effect of not having seen the full length trailer, not having exposed to the reviews, not having seen the first one, not liking the genre, thinking it is only for young people, the impact of the direct competition is evaluated, the quality of the word of mouth is fully evaluated.

 

They score each marketing aspect by seeing what people remembered and what they think were a reason for them to buy a ticket or not. It is quite the detailed 24 pages report people can read.

 

I am confident Disney do the same for most movies in most big market, specially when think go specially well or specially wrong like for Solo.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Barnack

[dudalb]

30 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

Just because Disney says one thing publicly, it does not mean they do not believe something different in private.

This. The Mouse is doing spin.

I get the feeling the best Disney PR people have been pulled off of what happened with Solo to handle what is going on with Rosanne Barr,

[MovieMan89]

20 minutes ago, A2k Raptor said:

SS didn't have sequelitis though. But then DP2 had inflated Sudnay in 2nd weekend helping it so not much to justify the big drop.

Yeah, the drop is pointing to a likely 2.1-2.2x multi. Hopefully it can do a little better. 

[PPZVGOS]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

In the end Solo failed because people did not want to spend 12 bucks to see it.

The fuss over TLJ did not help matters, but to make that the main reason Solo flopped is silly, If it had been a stronger film all the other stuff would probably not have mattered. I would say that poor marketing was probably much more of a factor then TLJ.

There wasn't "fuss" over TLJ. What was there, was utter, unbridled disgust. Moreover, what do you even mean when you say "poor marketing"? How was marketing for Solo any different than any other big-budget Hollywood production? 

Edited May 30, 2018 by PPZVGOS

[nevermore]

Just now, PPZVGOS said:

The outrage over TLJ is a well established fact. But, what do you even mean when you say "poor marketing"? How was marketing for Solo any different than any other big-budget Hollywood production? 

The trailers were pretty poor. They never really managed to sell you on the movie. Not to mention they came out quite late.

[PPZVGOS]

1 minute ago, nevermore said:

The trailers were pretty poor. They never really managed to sell you on the movie. Not to mention they came out quite late.

I don't think the trailers were poor, but in any case, that is somewhat subjective. They did in fact come out late, but you can't tell me that people were not aware that a new Star Wars movie was coming out. What they were also aware of, was the degree to which they loathed TLJ and wanted to make their feelings clear by avoiding Solo. 

[GraceRandolph]

A movie with Star Wars in its title should be all the marketing it needs to smash at the box office.

 

 

 

[DAJK]

Isn't opening weekend more indicative of the strength of the marketing/buzz of a movie rather than its actual quality?

[PPZVGOS]

1 minute ago, DAJK said:

Isn't opening weekend more indicative of the strength of the marketing/buzz of a movie rather than its actual quality?

It's also highly indicative of how the previous film in the franchise was received. 

[John Marston]

The Solo trailers were pretty faithful to how the film was like. I don't know what else they could have changed for them. The only thing they could have maybe done is spoil a certain cameo and it might have gotten a few more butts on the seats opening weekend but since it really is just a cameo it wouldn't have helped in the long run

[DAJK]

1 minute ago, PPZVGOS said:

It's also highly indicative of how the previous film in the franchise was received. 

Sure, but that still doesn't have to do with Solo itself

[Welfin]

Now that Rian Johnson has killed Star Wars, I'm sure Kathleen Kennedy will let him kill Indiana Jones next. All they do is destroy the legacy of George Lucas.

[nevermore]

4 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

I don't think the trailers were poor, but in any case, that is somewhat subjective. They did in fact come out late, but you can't tell me that people were not aware that a new Star Wars movie was coming out. What they were also aware of, was the degree to which they loathed TLJ and wanted to make their feelings clear by avoiding Solo. 

I myself didn't go to see Solo because of TLJ, so I'm sure that had effect. 

The truth is there's a lot of factors in play. You can't really blame it on one thing.

[Barnack]

6 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

There wasn't "fuss" over TLJ. What was there, was utter, unbridled disgust. Moreover, what do you even mean when you say "poor marketing"? How was marketing for Solo any different than any other big-budget Hollywood production? 

Poor in 2 ways

 

1) Length, Disney went only with Howard social media account for a long time, the marketing started close to the movie release date for what could have been an event movie, for multiple reason the major one being so close to the The Last Jedi run, with some speculated idea of not wanting to dilute any attention from the main story line sage to the spin-off, but it could something else.

 

2) Quality, trailers were arguably bad and quite dark, first one did hide Solo almost completely.

 

We are far from the Batman V Superman or Suicide Squad quality, that was audience main contact with this movie, the superbowl spot:

 

 

 

It didn't generated much interest, for the first content available at all about a Star Wars movie coming out in just a couple of month:

 

As of 1 a.m. Eastern on Monday, here are the top-viewed ads on game day, according to YouTube:

1. Alexa Loses Her Voice – Amazon Super Bowl LII Commercial
2. Groupon 2018 Super Bowl Commercial: “Who Wouldn’t”
3. Pepsi Generations: “This Is the Pepsi”
4. Bud Light – The Bud Knight
5. “Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan” – Amazon Prime
6. “Solo: A Star Wars Story”
7. “Westworld” Season 2 – Official Super Bowl Ad – HBO
8. “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” – Official Trailer No. 2
9. Marvel Studios’ “Avengers: Infinity War”
10. Budweiser 2018 Super Bowl Commercial: “Stand By You”

 

http://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2018

http://admeter.usatoday.com/commercials/solo-a-star-wars-story/

 

https://www.ispot.tv/events/super-bowl-commercials

It went quite lower than a doritos vs Mountain dew Ads overall.....

 

[PPZVGOS]

8 minutes ago, nevermore said:

I myself didn't go to see Solo because of TLJ, so I'm sure that had effect. 

The truth is there's a lot of factors in play. You can't really blame it on one thing.

There are more than one factors when explaining why Solo won't make as much as Rogue One. If that is what you are saying, then I agree.

 

*BUT* there's only one reason why it is an epic, spectacular failure: Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, a movie that the only thing it genuinely succeeded in "subverting", was the franchise itself. 

 

Edit: @Barnack From that Superbowl list you have there, Solo is the most popular movie-related ad, ahead of AIW and JW2

Edited May 30, 2018 by PPZVGOS

[DAJK]

8 minutes ago, Welfin said:

Now that Rian Johnson has killed Star Wars, I'm sure Kathleen Kennedy will let him kill Indiana Jones next. All they do is destroy the legacy of George Lucas.

yeesh. Guess this is the direction this thread is going

 

[dudalb]

24 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

A movie with Star Wars in its title should be all the marketing it needs to smash at the box office.

 

 

 

I think that is what Disney thought;they were wrong.

[WrathOfHan]

Where IW could land:

 

Remainder of this week: 3.2M (632.8M Total)

Jun 1: 12.1M (5.3M weekdays, 650.2M Total)

Jun 8: 7.5M (4M weekdays, 661.7M Total)

Jun 15: 5.3M (2.6M weekdays, 669.6M Total)

Jun 22: 2.3M (1.5M weekdays, 673.4M Total)

Jun 29: 1.8M (1.3M weekdays, 676.5M Total)

Jul 6: 1.4M (1M weekdays, 678.9M Total)

Jul 13: 900k (600k weekdays, 680.4M Total)

Final Total: 684M (2.65x)

 

700M is still alive.

[Nova]

There are various factors as to why Solo bombed OW. The marketing sucked. Sure Disney may have spent money on it the same way they'd spend on another blockbuster but the overall quality in the marketing sucked. I said in the Deadpool 2 thread and I'll say it now: it's not always about the quantity of marketing but rather the quality and Solo had poor trailers and a poor marketing campaign. Furthermore, the movie in itself was meh. After watching it, I didn't go and tell all my friends they have to see it. The movie wasn't bad or anything but it's just there. You also can't ignore TLJ and the reception to that movie BUT I'm tired of people blaming it simply on that. Finally, yes the release date does matter. Anytime we talk about a movie being successful/capturing lightning in a bottle we mention release date. Solo coming after two big blockbusters back to back had an effect on it. And yes maybe if it were a better movie/had better marketing people would have went to see Solo over DP2/IW but it was a lackluster marketing campaign. But just like a movie having no competition can effect it's box office (look at Suicide Squad) a movie that has competition especially within the same demo will lose money especially as I said if the movie is just average and it's going up against movies that are well received. The reality is there is no one reason why Solo bombed and Disney would be stupid to think there was only one factor. The biggest take away they need to take from this though is that they can't just take any old average movie, slap the Star Wars logo on it and think they'll be good to go because as we saw over this past weekend, the general audience looked the other way. It seems like that's what they did with Solo. They thought they could half ass things and people would show up to the theaters because it's a Star Wars movie.