SOLO: A Star Wars Story - May 25th - "I've Got a Bad Feeling About This"

[Johnmgm]

I don’t think fans are exhausted, but they are getting there.

I think the best way to look at Star Wars is the diminishing returns of each feature. The Force Awakens did gangsters, probably better than anyone realistically projected. However, Rougue One was a decline, granted it was not part of the trilogy, but still a decline. Bob Iger, Disney’s CEO told stockholders not to expect Force Awakens returns because Rogue One was a much “darker film.” I suspect old Bob also knew Rogue One was not a particularly distinguished film and wanted to keep financial expectations low.

Next came Last Jedi, part of the trilogy, but also a mess. LJ grossed more than R1, but significantly less than FA and apparently pissed off many fans and left many ordinary cinema goers uninterested in a second or third viewing.

By now the well has been tainted by two not very good Star Wars movies and an “original” that has folks second guessing their reactions to the 2015 film. Solo now premieres to a largely disinterested audience who feels burned one too many times. This is a shame, because it is IMHO the best of the four films. But, that’s show biz.

If I were running the show, I would reign in the Star Wars train until 2020 and see how part three of the trilogy performs. I would also start looking for a replacement for Lucas Film head honcho Kathy Kennedy, who clearly misjudged the franchise. I also think Iger should reconsider busting Disney in to four parts, 25% being Star Wars.

[AndyDursin]

The Force Awakens did gangsters, probably better than anyone realistically projected.

I don't think most were surprised with how well TFA did. After nearly a decade off, coming back with the first real Star Wars "sequel" -- the first time anyone saw Han, Luke, Leia in over 30 years -- brought an enormous amount of enthusiasm into that film. Add in it was a total push-button recycling of STAR WARS' formula (an attempt at a "fun", upbeat film as opposed to both TLJ and Rogue One) and that kind of gross was not unexpected.

The fall-off after that is no surprise at all, because when you put out diminishing returns on-screen, audiences will respond. The name is only going to carry them so far if you keep putting out trash.

I think as far as Kathleen Kennedy goes -- yeah, I think they may be wanting to mix things up, but I don't really think she is solely responsible for this mess and is off on some island, doing whatever she wants. People seem to think Marvel and "the new Lucasfilm" exist with their own independence -- that's absolutely not the case. Disney and Iger control their brands with an iron fist, it's why so many of their films have a numbing "sameness" and no personality, and why they have had so many issues with directors who have a "vision" (as Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank, Gareth Edwards, and Lord/Miller can all attest just in the limited time Disney has owned Star Wars).

Biggest problem for them is this was their own doing. Again, Release dates came before stories and directors. Plus you start a new trilogy without a clear story line carrying it over from one installment to the next? Disney's greed in trying to maximize profits and exploiting a massive built-in audience has really cost them here, dearly. In the space of less than 3 years they've taken one of the most beloved series in film history and gotten to the point where they laid an egg with SOLO's opening.

How much damage have they done to the long term with this release schedule remains to be seen. The next JJ movie will do better than SOLO, but it's debatable whether it will do LAST JEDI numbers, and will certainly never be doing FORCE AWAKENS grosses. Disney will find SW profitable no doubt if they manage it smartly (which they haven't), but they may never see those kinds of numbers ever again, a result of the bed they've made for themselves.

[Johnmgm]

Disney will never see Force Awakens numbers again. But, if they are smart (big question) they should never see Solo numbers again. However, I suspect the well is poisoned.

[esteban miranda]

Biggest problem for them is this was their own doing. Again, Release dates came before stories and directors. Plus you start a new trilogy without a clear story line carrying it over from one installment to the next?

While these may have been detriments to these particular movies, historically, successful and even really good pictures have been made that were scheduled before the details were worked out...

[AndyDursin]

Variety analysis...

‘Solo’: How Big a Box Office Dud Is the ‘Star Wars’ Spinoff?
by Brent Lang and Rebecca Rubin

“Solo: A Star Wars Story” is a rare misstep for Disney and for one of the preeminent film franchises in Hollywood history. It’s a painful reminder that even the most successful movie series can stumble and that even cocky Han Solo isn’t immune to some humbling box office results.

The numbers don’t lie. “Solo” earned a disappointing $103 million in North America over its opening weekend and stalled out with $68.2 million overseas. At this rate, it will fall short of the $1 billion mark that each Disney-released “Star Wars” adventure has managed to fly past. The latest installment will struggle to make even half that amount globally. Analysts project “Solo” could end its run with approximately $400 million to $450 million in revenues, a dreadful result for a film that cost at least $250 million to produce and $150 million to promote.

"It’s a financial disappointment and you have to wonder, is this just a speed bump in the road for the ‘Star Wars’ brand, or is there something more here?,” said Eric Handler, an analyst at MKM Partners.

There are concerns that Disney has overdone it with the “Star Wars” sequels and spinoffs, rolling out four films since 2015 at a pace that runs the risk of inspiring franchise fatigue. 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. In contrast, it made a profit on the big screen runs for each of the three “Star Wars” movies it released since buying Lucasfilm, the franchise’s creator, for roughly $4 billion in 2012.

Instead, Disney will need to rely on selling television rights, moving DVDs and Blu-rays, and monetizing other forms of home entertainment distribution as it tries to salvage its investment and push the film into the black. Most studios only receive half of the box office revenues and share the other half with exhibitors. Disney is different. The studio has been able to leverage its arsenal of Marvel, Pixar, and “Star Wars” movies to extract better terms from theater chains. The company brings in roughly 60% of ticket revenue, according to sources.

It’s not unusual for a big-budget film to have to earn most of its money from ancillary revenues. Roughly half of most movies’ revenues come from its theatrical window with the rest coming from pay-TV deals, rentals, and disc and digital sales, insiders say.

But “Star Wars” isn’t a typical franchise. Its sequels and spinoffs aren’t supposed to view their theatrical runs as loss-leaders. They’re supposed to generate hefty profits from the big screen. At one point, Disney had entertained ideas of having the space opera series be another Marvel, with visions of producing at least one movie a year set in its mythical galaxy. Those lofty ambitions may have to become more grounded. At the very least, Disney is unlikely to release two “Star Wars” films in the span of five months as it did with “Solo” and “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.”

“They probably won’t be able to make a ‘Solo’ sequel, as they probably hoped they would,” Handler said. “I think it makes them a little more cautious in how they treat the cannon.”

The studio may have received a bruising reality check with “Solo,” and been forced to recognize that even “Star Wars” movies can whiff at the box office. However, Disney has already fielded two $1 billion-plus grossing pictures this year with “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Black Panther,” and still has “The Incredibles 2” and “Ant-Man and the Wasp” hitting theaters in a matter of weeks. The studio is still in an enviable position.

“They can weather the storm more than any other studio because of the franchises they have that are doing amazing business,” said Jeff Bock, an analyst with Exhibitor Relations. “Out of any studio, they can take a couple hits.”

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/solo ... 202825432/

[KevinEK]

This basically confirms that they'll need to make up their shortfall on SOLO from home video, in the manner of Star Trek Into Darkness.
My thinking and hope is that this will encourage some careful thinking at Lucasfilm about how much story they really can expect to generate from the Star Wars franchise.
The real trick here will be to see if they greenlight any other non-trilogy movies for a while, and if they start moving the release date for Episode IX a bit later. It would be the more prudent course of action.

[BobaMike]

I finally got around to seeing SOLO last night. I rewatched The Last Jedi with my family over Memorial day (the first time for them), and it only confirmed my feeling of it as the worst Star Wars movie. That caused me to make Solo the first Star Wars movie I did not see on opening night. I wish I had, as I really enjoyed it!

Yes, the movie is shot too darkly.
Yes, Harrison Ford is a tough act to follow
Yes, the story is inconsequential in the end

But,
The score was probably more fun that Williams' Last Jedi. A great job by Powell using Williams' themes.
The movie was actually fun! Not a slog like Last Jedi
Donald Glover is a great Lando
Alden Ehrenreich won me over within a few minutes.
I liked that there was no "Force" in this movie. Just normal people.

Also I loved the inside nods to Star Wars lore: the ancient Lando and Han Solo novels from the 80s were referenced, as was the 90s video game Star Wars: Masters of Teras Kai

[Monterey Jack]

Saw an 11:50 AM matinee today only a week out from the film's opening weekend, I was the ONLY person in the theater. For a Star Wars movie.

As for the movie? 7/10. It's shallow, but fun. And I really like what John Powell did with the score.

[KevinEK]

The score is fun - particularly the quotes from the blast out of Mos Eisley and the Asteroid Field.

Another excuse my friend tried to lay out was that Memorial Day was a terrible weekend to release a movie because too many people are out of town. I slowly answered that I could think of one movie that did pretty good on a Memorial Day once - Star Wars...

[AndyDursin]

The sound that should scare 'Solo' filmmakers the most is the crowd's dead silence

Michael Cavna, The Washington Post

In space, no one can hear you daydream.

And at two recent screenings of "Solo: A Star Wars Story," one could easily wonder how far the audiences were mentally drifting, because at both, the origin-story spinoff was met with the deadliest sound a movie can meet:

Silence.

Not respectful or hushed-into-riveted silence, but the dead quietude of the only marginally engaged.

What other "Star Wars" film, across four decades, have you been able to say that about?

Near quiet, over two hours - as eerily muted as the sound of one Han clapping.

Is that the truest sound of a spinoff franchise dying?

The best "Star Wars" moments have always spurred rousing cheers from the popcorn crowds. The awe-inspiring crawl and special effects, the pivoting plot twists, the coolest of duels, the grand entrances and the fatal exits - all the highlights have prompted "ooh's" and "ahh's."

Yet it's not just that. Harrison Ford's wry one-liners have long prompted genuine laughs. Jar Jar Binks's moronic one-liners have long elicited groans and audible mocking. And even "Star Wars'" most divisive moments - see: "Jedi, Last" - have drawn a wide range of irrepressible noises. They're all the sounds of a movie affecting the viewer on some core level.

But "Solo," stunningly, sounds like a funeral that the theater's mourners are sleepwalking through.

Oddly, this doesn't mean that "Solo" is a dull movie. It's actually rather exceptionally solid. All the correct story beats are hit; all the key characters are introduced and cycled through just as we would expect; and all the chase scenes, kill shots, verbal showdowns and acts of deception come precisely as we expect them.

What is lacking are true highs and lows. There are numerous charming performances, including by many of the leads, but it's tough to play much beyond what's on the page. Crucially - and this isn't said lightly, because I'm a longtime Lawrence Kasdan fan - the dialogue needs serious punching up to be worthy of this franchise this far along. The jokes show more paunch than punch; they arrive in the right spots, but punctuality only gets you dutifully to the next beat.

Perhaps many of the jokes were once supposed to be found improvisationally on set, under original directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who reportedly encouraged that kind of experimentation. And surely director Ron Howard, coming in late in the game, had his hands full in simply steering and docking this craft as a professional, cohesive whole - which he gamely does.

Perhaps the fault lies not in the stars, but in the frequency of these "Star Wars" films. Maybe we've seen so much that we've become harder to surprise. Even "Solo's" graphical introduction - which invokes the iconic typeface and wording of "a galaxy far, far away" - seems to inspire only yawns at this point. And the rest ... is silence.

If you're at Disney and Lucasfilm right now, that type of silence should be deafening.

https://www.lmtonline.com/entertainment ... 958261.php

[Eric Paddon]

"One Han clapping."

[AndyDursin]

It's not getting any better: mid-week grosses are anemic and Deadline is describing this weekend as a "freefall", with SOLO coming just ahead of Deadpool.

A total worldwide gross of less than $500 million is a flat-out disaster in modern terms for this. May be one for the books.

This year, we’re left with holiday leftovers in Disney’s disappointment Solo: A Star Wars Story which according to estimates right now is grounded with a $7.5M second Friday, -78% which translates into a $26M second weekend, -69% for a running total of $145.5M. Ouch. End game stateside should be at $225M, and possibly about the same overseas for the Ron Howard-directed title. Yes, Solo is bound to lose money, however, whether it holds abroad this weekend will determine how much the hemorrhage is. Hopefully summer isn’t headed for a downturn on par with last year.

https://deadline.com/2018/06/shailene-w ... 202401740/

[Paul MacLean]

"One Han clapping."

[AndyDursin]

If you thought the movie was too dim, apparently the folks forking over $30 for HDR and Dolby Vision are even more irritated.

A stylistic choice on the part of the DP and Ron Howard, people are either blaming them or the (poor) state of theatrical projection for how ugly the low-light cinematography (an intentional choice on Howard's part) apparently appears in a lot of theaters.

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/solo-s ... 201969989/

[AndyDursin]

And there you have it...

'Solo' Will Lose $50M-Plus in First Defeat for Disney's 'Star Wars' Empire

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... re-1116927

Lucasfilm's stand-alone Han Solo origin pic is faltering at the global box office, where it is expected to top out in the $400 million range. To borrow one of Han Solo's lines from Star Wars: The Force Awakens, "That's not how the Force works!"

It's an apt way to sum up the troubled performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story. In one of the biggest box-office surprises in recent times, Solo is badly underperforming and will become the first of the Star Wars movies made by Disney and Lucasfilm to lose money.

Wall Street analyst Barton Crockett says Solo will lose more than $50 million. Industry financing souces, however, say that figure could come in at $80 million or higher, although no one knows the exact terms of Disney's deals for home entertainment and television, among other ancillary revenues.

Solo, directed by Ron Howard, isn't likely to gross much more than $400 million globally against a budget of at least $250 million and a major multimillion-dollar marketing spend. The movie lost major altitude in its second weekend of play to finish Sunday with a domestic total of $148.9 million and global cume of $264.2 million.

Until now, Disney and Lucasfilm appeared unstoppable. Force Awakens, benefiting mightily from pent-up demand, earned $2.068 billion globally to rank as the No. 3 title of all time, not adjusted for inflation. The stand-alone title Rogue One: A Star Wars Story flew to $1.056 billion, while Star Wars: The Last Jedi grossed $1.332 billion. Since expectations for any film in the Star Wars franchise are sizable, no one expected Solo to fly so low.

“This marks a tough return to movie reality for a Disney that had in recent years enjoyed a can’t-miss mystique,” Crockett wrote in his note to investors. In his own note to investors, analyst Doug Creutz of Cowen & Co. pins the blame on a lacklaster marketing campaign rather than franchise fatigue.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... re-1116927