# Solo: Star Wars A Flop?



## Zardnaar (Jun 1, 2018)

Well it seems like for the 1st time ever we may have a Star Wars flop for a movie. On its opening weekend it scrapped past 100 million. Problem is it cost 250 million to make, and with marketing costs etc they need to make around 500 million to break even. Google Star Wars:Solo a flop to see what I am talking about.

 The movie doesn't seem bad as such for reviews but I have not seen it. To put this in context I was reading the Thrawn Trilogy Books in the early 90's and got into Star Wars before it was cool again. I saw all the Star Wars movies from the 1997 Special Editions on the big screen through to The Last Jedi either on the opening night/midnight screening or at the 1st available opportunity often going multiple times. This lasted through to the Last Jedi which I only saw twice the the 2nd time was because my wife wanted to go and its kind of a thing to do together. I did not hate it as such but much like the Phantom Menace I felt it was disappointing by a lot. And they threw away Snoke.

 I enjoyed TFA although it was a bit to familiar/unoriginal. Really enjoyed Rogue One though. Might go see Solo this weekend, not boycotting it but also might wait to see it. Its also not a SJW thing people bleat about online either. I also like the Star Wars women generally if the writings good (Leia, Mara Jade, Jaina Solo, Jyn Erso), Rey is OK, Padme and Daala not so much. 

 Its partly Star Wars fatigue, how they burned down the old legends canon, the general decline of Star Wars novels in late legends and the new canon, the movies an annual event and the latest SWBF2 game being crap. And of course Hans dead, Lukes dead and Carrie Fisher is dead so 3 characters I do like are replaced by 3 characters I am mostly indifferent about (Rey is ok bit Mary Sue, Poe meh, Fin best of the bunch). 

Star Wars Movie Ratings Best to worst IMHO

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars: A New Hope
3. Rogue One
4. Return of the Jedi
5. The Force Awakens
6. Revenge of the Sith
7. The Last Jedi
8. A Phantom Menace
9. Attack of the Clones

 Yes I rated Revenge of the Sith over TLJ, I liked more of the characters (Anakin, Obi Wan, Emperor, Dooku) and I cared about the deaths of the younglings for example over the ham fisted Snoke/Luke thing.

 Also more or less avoiding the new canon books and comics and reading recaps online.I liked the old legends or at least the god bits, after 20+ years of it just was not interested in them burning it all down and starting over.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2018)

To quote Variety:

"However, calling the film a bomb, as some have labeled it, may be hyperbolic. After all, “Solo” is much more than a film. It’s a merchandising apparatus; one designed to move t-shirts, action figures, bedding, and even something as quotidian as plastic cups and paper plates. Disney is unlikely to be taking a write-down, even though the company will lose tens of millions on the theatrical part of “Solo’s” life-cycle. "


----------



## Istbor (Jun 1, 2018)

Umbran said:


> To quote Variety:
> 
> "However, calling the film a bomb, as some have labeled it, may be hyperbolic. After all, “Solo” is much more than a film. It’s a merchandising apparatus; one designed to move t-shirts, action figures, bedding, and even something as quotidian as plastic cups and paper plates. Disney is unlikely to be taking a write-down, even though the company will lose tens of millions on the theatrical part of “Solo’s” life-cycle. "




Pretty much.

We aren't talking about a film that needs to do well to continue a franchise.  This is part of a HUGE franchise already, and it really just supplementing and allowing for additional revenue to be had in other mediums. 

Regardless, I thought the movie was fun and interesting to watch, even if I knew the general outcome in advance.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 1, 2018)

Istbor said:


> We aren't talking about a film that needs to do well to continue a franchise.




I'll go one further say this: the film is actually doing OK by regular film standards.  It brought in over 100 million on it's first weekend, and that's just domestic.  It's guaranteed to be in the theaters for many more weeks, and will bring in even more internationally.  It's likely the film will re-coup it's $250 million budget at the box office.

It's only doing bad by Star Wars standards.  Just being #1 and making a profit isn't good by Star Wars standards.  People expect Star Wars to be THE BIGGEST MOVIE EVER.  Anything less is a "flop".  Given the number of films Disney has planned, it's inevitable that they all can't be record breakers.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 1, 2018)

Flop no.

Fun, but unnecessary.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2018)

Deset Gled said:


> Given the number of films Disney has planned, it's inevitable that they all can't be record breakers.




Yes.  Some of what I see is, "OMG, it isn't making a half-billion dollars!  This is MOMENTOUS!!!1!one!"

There is a certain amount of unrealistic expectation going into this, a certain lack of perspective.  They have a decent film out of a troubled production, which is a success in and of itself.  It may not be an economic powerhouse, but it'll turn out as "not a loss".  In the long run, folks will think positively of the film, and the franchise will move on happily enough.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 1, 2018)

Not a flop. But neither was _Justice League_. That doesn’t mean it’s likely to spawn a sequel and does mean Disney is likely to change its plans. It might mean they might not end up doing more character focused prequels or recasting.

While it’s likely to make money, it was released in place of a movie that _could_ have made a billion dollars. We’ll see.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 2, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  Some of what I see is, "OMG, it isn't making a half-billion dollars!  This is MOMENTOUS!!!1!one!"
> 
> There is a certain amount of unrealistic expectation going into this, a certain lack of perspective.  They have a decent film out of a troubled production, which is a success in and of itself.  It may not be an economic powerhouse, but it'll turn out as "not a loss".  In the long run, folks will think positively of the film, and the franchise will move on happily enough.




Rogue One brought in a billion dollars and people seem to like the movie, I loved it. 

Disney might actually lose money on this one as I said 500 million is what they need to break even. Say it takes 300 million the studio only sees a % of that and they would still lose money even though the movie cost 250 million to make. 

 Throw in marketing costs and thats why 500 million is apparently the magic number to break even as they get around 70% of that IIRC (350 million for Disney). 

 When a movie loses money its more or less the definition of a flop. Its not because its not a main SW movie (see Rogue One, which had lower expectations than TFA).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Disney might actually lose money on this one as I said 500 million is what they need to break even. Say it takes 300 million the studio only sees a % of that and they would still lose money even though the movie cost 250 million to make.




Overall, no, they won't lose money.  They just won't make as much.  As noted above, there's merchandising and licensing to consider that are not mentioined in the box office gross.  They'll make their money back, eventually.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 2, 2018)

The movie tried to be a happy meal, hitting all the check boxes that they thought the fans wanted to see.  The problem was there was no soul in the story, it lacked something.  It should have been done like swashbuckling movie, action and zippy lines, with Solo bouncing (not walking) from adventure to the next.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 2, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Overall, no, they won't lose money.  They just won't make as much.  As noted above, there's merchandising and licensing to consider that are not mentioined in the box office gross.  They'll make their money back, eventually.




The catch being the timing doesn't help the toy sales either. Since unlike other films there's no Christmas rush. 
And there was a lot of news on how SW toy sales dropped in 2017. 
And Solo is more of a grown up favourite character. I'm not sure his toys will do well.


----------



## megamania (Jun 3, 2018)

It made a profit.  Not a flop.    Lower than hoped for?   To all of the producers their movies could have brought in more.

Then there is merchandising......


----------



## Beleriphon (Jun 3, 2018)

megamania said:


> Then there is merchandising......


----------



## megamania (Jun 3, 2018)

Its GOOD to be the Producer


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 3, 2018)

Beyond the original trilogy, there isn't a good Star Wars film. Star Wars is too tied with Jedis, the Force and the Skywalkers. It doesn't have the dept to generate other interesting stories to tell on screen. The second trilogy showed us that and the four new films confirmed it. _The Force Awakens_ is a good demontration that nothing new can be added to the cinematic universe. This is why there is already Star Wars fatigue among the general audience and _Solo_ isn't on par with box office-wise when compared to the other films.

Continuing to produce Star Wars material should be limited to novels who are for a very targetted audience.

Speaking of lack of dept, the up coming _Avatar_ films are going to be hilariously hollow.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Beyond the original trilogy, there isn't a good Star Wars film. Star Wars is too tied with Jedis, the Force and the Skywalkers. It doesn't have the dept to generate other interesting stories to tell on screen. The second trilogy showed us that and the four new films confirmed it. _The Force Awakens_ is a good demontration that nothing new can be added to the cinematic universe. This is why there is already Star Wars fatigue among the general audience and _Solo_ isn't on par with box office-wise when compared to the other films.
> 
> Continuing to produce Star Wars material should be limited to novels who are for a very targetted audience.
> 
> Speaking of lack of dept, the up coming _Avatar_ films are going to be hilariously hollow.




Rogue One had barely a Sith cameo, and it was excellent. It certainly wouldn't have failed as a story if they'd dropped Vader entirely.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 4, 2018)

Disappointment =/= flop.
There is also the fact that Disney has proven that they do not 'grok' what makes Star Wars a different sci-fi franchise from others.

But since the resulting movie was entertaining, Ron Howard ought to get credit for salvaging the mess he was handed.  Budget and time constraints prevented him starting over from scratch; I think the movie would have been stronger if he had been involved from Square One.  (I consider Ron able to produce above-average movies reliably and sometimes excellent movies.)


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2018)

MarkB said:


> Rogue One had barely a Sith cameo, and it was excellent. It certainly wouldn't have failed as a story if they'd dropped Vader entirely.




Rogue One performed better than expected. Expectations were lower and it exceeded them.  It also did a lot better in its opening weekend. 

 Numbers are also low for Solos second weekend and it's projected to get less than 450 million which is actually a loss. That 450 expectation might be optimistic numbers are very low weekend 2.


----------



## ccs (Jun 4, 2018)

Here's my opinion of Solo:

I was entertained - in a generic sci-fi action movie kind of way.

 That's not a ringing endorsement as I've watched equally/more entraining shlock via my Amazon Prime act.
 The sad thing is that I've also watched worse SW movies than this....

 All you're really getting here is a good Lando performance by Donald Glover, a fairly uninspired heist/double cross plot, some SW window dressing, & a check list of Solo related details (most of wich have never needed any backstory - gun, name, attitude, etc.)
 Oh, and there's some guy in it trying to play the role of Han Solo.

 If you see it? See it as cheaply as possible & set your expectations to zero.
 If you never see it? You'll have missed exactly nothing.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jun 4, 2018)

I mostly enjoyed it. But I don't need more prequels.....


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2018)

I think Star Wars is a fantastic setting that can be used to tell stories like the one in Solo. I would like to see more films like that a lot more than more films about saving the Republic from the Evil Sith Empire. 
Maybe the biggest flaw of the movie is that it's about an established character. Imagine if they introduced a new Rogueish character instead that could go on his own adventures for a few movies!

But if this won't work commercially, I might be a minority.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 4, 2018)

Hand of Evil said:


> It should have been done like a swatch bucking movie



What the heck is a swatch bucking movie? (English isn't my first language, so my apologies if it should be obvious...)


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 4, 2018)

The conversation around this movie reminds me of the conversations that crop up when people make Star Wars games without Jedi.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 4, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> What the heck is a swatch bucking movie? (English isn't my first language, so my apologies if it should be obvious...)




and my spelling is horrible...swashbuckling...gee, I am bad and English is my only language.   Swatch Bucking is trying to ride a colorful wrist watch.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2018)

Hand of Evil said:


> and my spelling is horrible...swashbuckling...




I figured.  Because a movie about putting on trendy Swiss watches just doesn't sound all that interesting...


----------



## Eltab (Jun 4, 2018)

Leatherhead said:


> The conversation around this movie reminds me of the conversations that crop up when people make Star Wars games without Jedi.




Read _"Star Wars: Scoundrels"_ by Timothy Zahn.  The setting is clearly Star Wars but the only sign of a Jedi is somebody's old almost-broken lightsaber.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2018)

Eltab said:


> Read _"Star Wars: Scoundrels"_ by Timothy Zahn.  The setting is clearly Star Wars but the only sign of a Jedi is somebody's old almost-broken lightsaber.




Depending on what "making games without Jedi" is supposed to refer to - running a Star Wars game without Jedi? Sure. If the group likes that. But making a Star Wars RPG (Computer or Pen & Paper) without Jedi? I think you shoudn't do that. That's like making a fantasy game where wizards aren't playable, but still exist in the setting.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Depending on what "making games without Jedi" is supposed to refer to - running a Star Wars game without Jedi? Sure. If the group likes that. But making a Star Wars RPG (Computer or Pen & Paper) without Jedi? I think you shoudn't do that. That's like making a fantasy game where wizards aren't playable, but still exist in the setting.




Oops!  It was already done!

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/star-wars-edge-empire-showcase/

The rules for playing Jedi didn't come out until two years after the game was released.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 4, 2018)

I used to be a Star Wars junkie.   But honestly Disney SW has pretty much killed my interest in the franchise, even the classic trilogy unfortunately, so instead of seeing this 7 times already I haven't and don't know if I will.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 4, 2018)

MarkB said:


> Rogue One had barely a Sith cameo, and it was excellent. It certainly wouldn't have failed as a story if they'd dropped Vader entirely.



It was a bad film. Lame story full of plot holes and cardboard cute out characters. And unnecessary. Like Solo's backstory.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> And unnecessary.




Usually, a hammer is not necessary for making supper.  However, a hammer is instrumental in building a dog house.

So, when you say the movie is unnecessary, there is an implied _purpose_.  What is that purpose, in this case?  What do they not need this to accomplish?

And, as a follow-up question, what stories are necessary?  What *NEEDS* to be told?  Or are all stories fundamentally unnecessary?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Usually, a hammer is not necessary for making supper. However, a hammer is instrumental in building a dog house.



That is a pretty terrible analogy. 



> What is that purpose, in this case?



Depends. For producers? Make money. It did. But you and I aren't producers, so it doesn't matter. For the general audience, like you and me? Tell an entertaining story. It didn't. No Star Wars film has pulled that off since the original trilogy. It can't. The material from the original trilogy is too thin and already has been spread over to much toast. 



> And, as a follow-up question, what stories are necessary? What *NEEDS* to be told? Or are all stories fundamentally unnecessary?



Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 5, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.




It's a valid question since you deemed that  Rogue one and Solo's backstory were unnecessary as films, what SW stories are necessary as films in your opinion?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> For the general audience, like you and me? Tell an entertaining story. It didn't. No Star Wars film has pulled that off since the original trilogy. It can't. The material from the original trilogy is too thin and already has been spread over to much toast.




So, for all those people who say they found the film entertaining... they were wrong?  They weren't entertained, but don't realize it?  'Cause you are speaking about "you and me" but seem to be applying taste that's all *you*.  That's not really cool.  Speak for yourself all you like, but allowing for others to like different things than you would be better.

I mean, if we all liked the same things, that'd be boring.  And just think of the haggis shortage.



> Wow. I obviously touched a nerve. It is just a bunch of films. Not good ones, but still just films. No need to get emotional about it.




Not emotional about it at all.  They are literally rhetorical questions - questions whose unstated answers make the rhetorical point.

And, since you didn't answer, I think my point was made.  Thanks.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Seems official now.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/solo-star-wars-box-office-flop

 Google solo SW flop there are more. Down 65%+ in the second weekend after an underwhelming 1st weekend, projected to get no more than 450 million (500 is about break even). 

 The cost of the thing also makes it hard. 250 million to make, 150 in marketing and due to cinemas getting a cut of the movie that is why they need around 500 million to turn a profit. 

 So Disney may be on the hook for 50-100 million loss. Which is not the worst results they have ever had. 

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...neys-biggest-box-office-fails.html/?a=viewall


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Oops!  It was already done!
> 
> https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/star-wars-edge-empire-showcase/
> 
> The rules for playing Jedi didn't come out until two years after the game was released.




However, that doesn't mean that I think they should have done it that way. Though at least in the setting of the "Edge of the Empire", I would say that the space wizards practically do _not _exist in the setting, so it might also be acceptable to not have them in the rules. 
But once you expand the game to another era (or area?), you will find something is missing, and as you say, they eventually added them.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2018)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Though at least in the setting of the "Edge of the Empire", I would say that the space wizards practically do _not _exist in the setting, so it might also be acceptable to not have them in the rules.




But, isn't it true that they practically do not exist any time after Episode III?  They're only "common" during the period of the Old Republic.  By the time of Episode IV, Han hardly believed they existed, much less that they had actual power.   So, by that logic, any game set after Episode III doesn't need them in the rules....


----------



## ccs (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> I figured.  Because a movie about putting on trendy Swiss watches just doesn't sound all that interesting...




Worse movies than that've been made though.....


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2018)

I'm not surprised Disney won't recoup their costs, given the film's storied, troubled, and therefore extra-spendy production, but I *am* surprised by the sharp audience drop. I figured word-of-mouth would help the film. Solo is certainly unambitious, and the final shooting scrip may or may not be in the form of an actual checklist, but it is entertaining. The Hail, Caesar! guy is surprisngly good as young Han. Ditto the Queen of the Dragons, Earn Calrissian, Woody Abernathy, and Phoebe Waller-British as Che3. 

(I kid a little, but they really were a fine cast for an inconsequential movie)

What surprised me, though, is it's _exactly_ what I thought a segment of the SW fanbase wanted: fun, well-made fan-service. It's almost-but-not-quite the anti-The Last Jedi. 

For my $11 -- of whatever I paid for a Philly matinee opening day -- Solo is nowhere near as good TLJ. That one stuck in my mind for weeks. I still can't decide if I put it ahead of the original as the best SW movie. But Solo was fine, better than fine, even.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Seems official now....
> 
> The cost of the thing also makes it hard. 250 million to make, 150 in marketing and due to cinemas getting a cut of the movie that is why they need around 500 million to turn a profit.
> 
> So Disney may be on the hook for 50-100 million loss. Which is not the worst results they have ever had.




The first rule of Hollywood Accounting is that you never believe the Hollywood Accounting.  If we believe the numbers that include "all" costs, no movie has ever made a profit.  Heck, going by your numbers, Return of the Jedi is a flop.

When most people call something a "flop", they go by the production budget.  It's not a perfect analysis, but it's the best analysis that is available before the numbers are laundered.  OTOH, when websites want to generate traffic, they'll call any highly Googled movie a flop as long as it isn't a smash hit.  This is the same phenomenon that describes why so many tech websites will call every new iPhone a failure, or why you hear about every Tesla crash.



> https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...neys-biggest-box-office-fails.html/?a=viewall




That article doesn't even try to be honest.  By its own admission, Prince of Persia returned $336 million at the box office off a $200 million budget.  Yet it's listed as a bigger flop than Treasure Planet, which was a legitimate loss with $109 million returns on a $140 million budget.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Deset Gled said:


> The first rule of Hollywood Accounting is that you never believe the Hollywood Accounting.  If we believe the numbers that include "all" costs, no movie has ever made a profit.  Heck, going by your numbers, Return of the Jedi is a flop.
> 
> When most people call something a "flop", they go by the production budget.  It's not a perfect analysis, but it's the best analysis that is available before the numbers are laundered.  OTOH, when websites want to generate traffic, they'll call any highly Googled movie a flop as long as it isn't a smash hit.  This is the same phenomenon that describes why so many tech websites will call every new iPhone a failure, or why you hear about every Tesla crash.
> 
> ...




Even without hollywood accounting though you still need to make more than production costs to turn a profit. If you movie makes 250 million but costs 250 million you still lose money.

 There is also sites that estimate the profit of movies excluding Hollywood accounting. Unless things pick up drastically Solo will probably lose money and IDK if things like merchandising can save it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Even without hollywood accounting though you still need to make more than production costs to turn a profit. If you movie makes 250 million but costs 250 million you still lose money.




Nope.  You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit.  Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office.  Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital).  And they don't have action figures or video games.

You don't get to spin it in both directions.  If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes.  And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Deset Gled said:


> Nope.  You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit.  Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office.  Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital).  And they don't have action figures or video games.
> 
> You don't get to spin it in both directions.  If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes.  And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.




 And video rentals are dead now. I suppose you oculd make money on things like renting it out online.

 And by box office I mean things like DVD/video etc sales as well. Even if they break the estimated 450 million mark its still well short of Rogue Ones haul. Rogue One over performed for its expectations (they were a lot lower than TFA). Can't count that yet but the overall theme is still the same, Solo not doing that well. 

 I still haven't seen Solo, got side tracked in the weekend but from the sounds of it its not the worst SW movie (looking at TPM and AotC). If I catch it via some online service later its no big deal. Its the 1st SW movie since 1997 I have not rushed out to watch ASAP though. I travelled 120km to watch the 1997 Special Editions on the big screen. Its about 3 or 4 km to watch Solo by comparison.

 If I had to pick an exact reaosn I think it was The Last Jedi it killed my excitement which TFA and Rogue One did not manage to pull off.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 6, 2018)

trappedslider said:


> It's a valid question since you deemed that  Rogue one and Solo's backstory were unnecessary as films, what SW stories are necessary as films in your opinion?




The first one. It came out at the right time, in the right place, with the right themes and thus why it was so successful. It filled some void or niche or need or whatever in USian -and Western to lesser extant- culture. It is why some lines or scenes are so famous and pervacive. Why you do not need to have seen the movie to know them. Why it is still of cultural importance today. And why Disney keeps trying to milk it for cash, but just puss is coming out right now. But originally it was just one movie. No trilogy, no universe. Vader wasn't Luke's dad or anything. Just one story with an end.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 6, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So, for all those people who say they found the film entertaining... they were wrong?



Of course. People have low standards. Just look at the money the Transformers films made. Or how people buy all sort of crap and say they like it. 



> They weren't entertained, but don't realize it?



Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards. But some people are just attracted to what is familiar. Some will just see anything with the Star Wars logo on it. Some have short term memory. Others just were never exposed to quality. But most are just programmed to consumme. It is what mass marketing and mass culture is about in our capitalist world.  

But people weren't really interested in it when you look at the box office compared to other Star Wars films. Just like how you can see the DCU films are terrible when you look at how the box office performance and quality of those films. The Star Wars franchise is not in good health and it is because quality isn't there. Admitting it is the first step.



> 'Cause you are speaking about "you and me" but seem to be applying taste that's all *you*.



Not at all. Quality is mesurable by all. It just takes a distance. To be less emotionally involved. Like Star Wars fans are. That is the real problem here. If you weren't a fan, there could be a discussion about how bad the films are. But instead it is about anything but the quality of the films. And that won't help the franchise you're a fan of. It will just lead to a horrible death. Imagine a rebooted Vader inspired by Leto's Joker. 



> That's not really cool.



Meh. Trying to be cool is not cool.  



> Speak for yourself all you like, but allowing for others to like different things than you would be better.



People need help to come out of the cave. Plato was right. There are not the shadows you are looking for.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 6, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> The first one. It came out at the right time, in the right place, with the right themes and thus why it was so successful. It filled some void or niche or need or whatever in USian -and Western to lesser extant- culture. It is why some lines or scenes are so famous and pervacive. Why you do not need to have seen the movie to know them. Why it is still of cultural importance today. And why Disney keeps trying to milk it for cash, but just puss is coming out right now. But originally it was just one movie. No trilogy, no universe. Vader wasn't Luke's dad or anything. Just one story with an end.




so basically everything after A New Hope was unneeded and unnecessary in your opinion. wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2018)

trappedslider said:


> wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....



But he’s a philosopher-king who moonlights as a movie critic. His opinions are probably TRUTH!


----------



## Jester David (Jun 6, 2018)

Deset Gled said:


> Nope.  You can make less than your production costs at the box office and still turn a profit.  Shawshank Redemption and The Interview are two pretty well known examples of movies that earned less than their production budget at the box office.  Yet both became profitable with at-home video (sales, rental, digital).  And they don't have action figures or video games.
> 
> You don't get to spin it in both directions.  If you want to make up extra expenses, you also have to add in all the incomes.  And I'm still going to call most of your expenses fake and arbitrarily front-loaded.




_Shawshank Redemption_ had a $25 million dollar budget and made $28 million at the box office, and likely didn't have much of an advertising budget. So it just needed to make $25 million in TV and video sales to be in the black. And as one of the most critically well received movies of the '90s, this was easy. It's still not a huge hit. 
Meanwhile, _the Interview_, which cost roughly $40+ million, *almost* made that back between box office and rentals. So it's still a money loser. Maybe close to breaking even.

Now, the above have $40 million in video sales portrayed as decent. _Solo_ needs to make an additional $250 *million* to just break even and far, far more to be a hit. Even with robust streaming and solid disc sales, it's likely going to be many, many years before it turns a profit.


----------



## Istbor (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I still haven't seen Solo, got side tracked in the weekend but from the sounds of it its not the worst SW movie (looking at TPM and AotC). If I catch it via some online service later its no big deal. Its the 1st SW movie since 1997 I have not rushed out to watch ASAP though. I travelled 120km to watch the 1997 Special Editions on the big screen. Its about 3 or 4 km to watch Solo by comparison.





I think right here tells the story.  How many people started seeing box office numbers and early posts about flops, and let that dictate their decision?  I certainly think such a thing can and does adversely affect movies such as this one.  

How many of those who are not like Zard, swimming in the echo chamber of 'But how much money did it make' accounted for the drop in the second week? How many are now thinking, I'll just wait till I can purchase it cheap or stream it?  Probably no way to tell, though, I firmly believe all of this talk had a hand in what took place. 

Say what you will about such a phenomena. I think it is a bit sad.  Watch the movie (sure, see it as cheap as you can, its your money after all), then decide if the movie is good/entertaining.

Instead this breeds people who haven't even seen the dang film to decry it. (no offense Zard)  And how is that helpful to someone looking for information to make the decision to see it? 

It was a good movie.  It was not the best Star Wars film, and it was certainly not the worst.  I have wondered though, if the lack of Jedi harmed it. Unsure.  Maybe Disney will turn a profit, maybe not.  I don't think they will be hurting though.  There will still be marketable merchandise that comes away from this.


----------



## Rabulias (Jun 6, 2018)

Disney will recoup its costs on _Solo _with streaming/on-demand, premium channel showings, cable channel showings, broadcast channel showings, blu-ray/DVD sales, and most of all, ancillary merchandising. And they might even make some money. It's not box office numbers alone.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Of course. People have low standards. Just look at the money the Transformers films made. Or how people buy all sort of crap and say they like it.




De gustibus non est disputandum.



> Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards.




Who gets to define standards as low or high?  See below before you answer this.



> Meh. Trying to be cool is not cool.




When "be cool" is "be decent to your fellow human beings", I disagree with your assertion.  



> People need help to come out of the cave.




Have you considered the possibility that *you* are the one in the cave?  After all, yours is the place of dankness and disapproval, were few things are worthy of enjoyment.  That's pretty cave-like.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 6, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Let's not generalize. There is teh problem of low standards.



The juxtaposition of these two sentences is hilarious. Was that intentional? 

Also, the problem isn't just that people have low standards It's that there's often broad disagreement over what the standards _are_. Obvious point is obvious (obvs).



> But some people are just attracted to what is familiar.



This is a really odd point to make in a conversation presumably with genre fans. By definition, fans of a given genre want familiar elements - because that's what genres _are_. Collections of plots, themes, stock characters, and common elements shared between works that get that place them in the same general category. Which makes discussion the _unfamiliar_ and the _innovative_ vis a vis genre media something that requires a bit of nuance (and less 'implied sheeple' argumentation). 



> Some will just see anything with the Star Wars logo on it. Some have short term memory. Others just were never exposed to quality. But most are just programmed to consumme. It is what mass marketing and mass culture is about in our capitalist world.



See above re: less implied sheeple rhetoric.   



> The Star Wars franchise is not in good health and it is because quality isn't there.



See now I disagree (oh so many different standards!). Of the 4 contemporary Star Wars films, 2 are excellent, 1 is very good, and 1 is good, despite a troubled production. For starters, The Last Jedi is absolutely gorgeous in places, and -- at least for middle-aged me -- surprisingly emotionally resonant (the sad Luke parts). 



> Quality is measurable by all.



Agreement over said measurements, however...

Seriously though, can you list a few films you consider to be 'quality'? Without an example of your baseline, this is just "You have bad taste! Do not! Do too!"



> It just takes a distance.



This could be the start of a beautiful... I mean, good point. 



> To be less emotionally involved.



But this kinda wrecks it. Art that provokes an emotional response is art that works. Especially one that endures over time. I know what your saying: people's emotional attachment to a given work/franchise/whatever clouds their more intellectual assessment of it. But that elides how those attachments form in the first place, the validity of those reactions, and how easy it is for intellectual assessments of art to eclipse more honest responses. 



> If you weren't a fan, there could be a discussion about how bad the films are.



Begging the question, you are. A good film critic does not this thing.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Istbor said:


> I think right here tells the story.  How many people started seeing box office numbers and early posts about flops, and let that dictate their decision?  I certainly think such a thing can and does adversely affect movies such as this one.
> 
> How many of those who are not like Zard, swimming in the echo chamber of 'But how much money did it make' accounted for the drop in the second week? How many are now thinking, I'll just wait till I can purchase it cheap or stream it?  Probably no way to tell, though, I firmly believe all of this talk had a hand in what took place.
> 
> ...




 I don't mind if a movie doesn't do well at the box office to go see it I have not been excited fro Star Wars:Solo for a while. I don't really care about a movies commercial success as to if I see or like it. Labyrinth for example was a flop at the box office and its one of my favourite movies ever. The interest was never there.

 YOu can tell a good Star Wars Story without the force (the old X-Wing novels come to mind).


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 7, 2018)

trappedslider said:


> so basically everything after A New Hope was unneeded and unnecessary in your opinion. wow, that's an opinion I've never encountered before.....



Not an opinion. Just facts. Vader wasn't originally Luke's dad. There were no plans for a trilogy or universe. Disney is milking the brand for cash. The films are terrible... Stop being emotionally involved and just read about it. You'll found out for yourself.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 7, 2018)

Mallus said:


> The juxtaposition of these two sentences is hilarious. Was that intentional?



Of course. Cause it is factual and this is the internet. Ravenous fans try to defend bad art when it is indefendable. I'm working on many levels here, but that escapes most people. Gratz! You saw I work on many levels.



> Also, the problem isn't just that people have low standards It's that there's often broad disagreement over what the standards _are_. Obvious point is obvious (obvs).[/quoe]Honest people do not disagree. The problem is he mental gymnastics fans will go through to justify bad stuff. Or the lack of mental effort most people put into things. Many people eat at McDonald's and say it was good. These sort of films are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 7, 2018)

Umbran said:


> De gustibus non est disputandum.



You're just using a saying in latin as a fallacy. Reductio ad latinium. 



> Who gets to define standards as low or high?



You do not recognize mesures of quality? Interesting. You drink sour milk?



> I disagree with your assertion.



Ironically, you're disagreeing with yourself. A typial fan's response who will attack the messenger rather than the message. I will not do your homework for you. Check why I'm saying this. And double check. Cause I will not tell you say "I do not see it". 



> Have you considered the possibility that *you* are the one in the cave?



Being able to honestly say the Star Wars film were bad after the first trilogy means him out the cave. Try to join us. I know you can! You all can! Put Star Wars to rest. Stop feeding Disney with your money and thus your approval. Resists. Let Star Wars be what it should be. A memory.


----------



## trappedslider (Jun 7, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Not an opinion. Just facts. Vader wasn't originally Luke's dad. There were no plans for a trilogy or universe.




well this interview says different 







> POLLOCK: In 1971, I became George’s attorney. He was just doing THX 1138 with Francis Coppola at Warner Bros, which was an extension of the short he did at USC. The first deal we did was a two-picture deal at United Artists Corporation for George to write a script called American Graffiti, and for an untitled science fiction movie, in nine parts. Swear to God. This was what was in the contract. I know this because when Skywalker Ranch was built, George had a time capsule buried. One of the things I put in there was that contract, along with the articles of incorporation of Lucasfilm.




https://deadline.com/2015/12/star-w...-historic-rights-deal-tom-pollock-1201669419/



> DEADLINE: Back when that first deal was forming, and George ended up with $150,000 for the first film, did you think they would say yes to giving George ownership?
> POLLOCK: Who knew? The point was, at that point I was a lawyer, doing what my client wanted. And what my client wanted wasn’t the money, it was the ability to get the movie made. I didn’t know it, but at some point when he was doing the first Star Wars, he had worked out the basic plot of episode V and VI. You know, Darth Vader…Vader means father, in German. It means Dark Father.




As for the Solo movie, the fans over at bloomilk, a star wars miniature gaming site seem to have loved it  *shrugs*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

I don't think to many people are claim Solo is bad.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't think to many people are claim Solo is bad.




It is getting a 71% on the Tomatometer, for those who want to consider the broader opinion of the movie.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2018)

Kramodlog said:


> Honest people do not disagree.




What?  

That might be true... if we were ants.  If we were all physically and psychologically the same, if we had the same upbringings, and life experiences knowledge and understaning.  But real people differ from each other - have different wants, needs, desires and sensibilities and perspectives.  So, we disagree on stuff.

Or, perhaps to use your formulations:  Honest people accept that some things are subjective, not objective.





> I'm talking about Star Wars fans. Not gerne fans. Star Wars fans are the kind of people who make an actress delete her posts cause of abuse. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44379473
> 
> You know. People who won't say/see something is bad even when it is.




Um, I don't understand the mental gymnastics there.

My understanding is that you claim the fans have low standards, and will accept anything fed to them.  But, this is an example* of them _absolutely hating_ something fed to them, and reacting violently to it. They thought it was bad, and said so by hounding someone off social media for it.  So, how does this support your point?  This is evidence that fans can and will be highly critical of that which doesn't match their tastes.

*It is, actually, an example of a small number of fans being complete jerks.  Stronger language would be more appropriate, but is not allowed here.


*Edit:  Oh, I just realized who I'm talking to.  Never mind.  Hi goldo!*


----------



## Istbor (Jun 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't mind if a movie doesn't do well at the box office to go see it I have not been excited fro Star Wars:Solo for a while. I don't really care about a movies commercial success as to if I see or like it. Labyrinth for example was a flop at the box office and its one of my favourite movies ever. The interest was never there.
> 
> YOu can tell a good Star Wars Story without the force (the old X-Wing novels come to mind).




Yeah.  There are certainly people out there that act in the way you do.  I am similar with certain movies also.  I just think there are also those that the lack of recording money making opening weekends, can and does affect whether they will see the movie or not.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

Istbor said:


> Yeah.  There are certainly people out there that act in the way you do.  I am similar with certain movies also.  I just think there are also those that the lack of recording money making opening weekends, can and does affect whether they will see the movie or not.




 Well I have not heard anything that bad about the movie as sch most critics seem to like it a little bit. I assumed it would go like gang busters but it was after the opening weekend when the words flop seemed to explode across the interwebz. I generally do not go to the movies that much anymore anyway or even watch them at home that much. I have not seen most of the super hero movies, just Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2. 

 I would rather see a Lando spinoff I thing or Fett, or something like an X-Wing squadron spin off (Rogue Squadron?). Or a new trilogy set in the past or future (Knights of the Old Republic or Legacy in the old legends).


----------



## Istbor (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Well I have not heard anything that bad about the movie as sch most critics seem to like it a little bit. I assumed it would go like gang busters but it was after the opening weekend when the words flop seemed to explode across the interwebz. I generally do not go to the movies that much anymore anyway or even watch them at home that much. I have not seen most of the super hero movies, just Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2.
> 
> I would rather see a Lando spinoff I thing or Fett, or something like an X-Wing squadron spin off (Rogue Squadron?). Or a new trilogy set in the past or future (Knights of the Old Republic or Legacy in the old legends).




Oh yeah, a movie about Lando would probably do well.  Not sure I need the Fett one.  I don't need to see his rise to power.  Becoming Mandalore maybe, but for me Boba Fett is all about that mystic and dope armor. 

All in all, I thought Solo was a good movie, the actors did a good job. (I totally didn't realize it was the Mother of Dragons until the end of the movie) Worth seeing it in the theaters in my humble opinion.


----------

