Han Solo: A Spoilerrific Star Wars Review

[glitterboy2098]

actually i thought Solo had a lot more slow-paced bits than most of the recent ones. i think the fact that the fast paced bits just had a lot going on in them made it seem faster than it was.

[ANS Kamas P81]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/report-the-star-wars-story-films-are-being-put-on-hold-1826992769

Seems Solo became a 450 million dollar speedbump...if not outright career killer.

[Sharpnel]

The main reason the movie was a bust is that the originl directors did a crap job and they were forced to reshoot too much of the film. Poor choices were made in the making of this film. I haven't seen it yet and probably won't until it's available in a Redbox. of the four new canon films. Rogue One was the best. The two mainline films have not impressed me as they are basically re-hashes of the original film trilogy.

[glitterboy2098]

https://io9.gizmodo.com/report-the-star-wars-story-films-are-being-put-on-hold-1826992769

Seems Solo became a 450 million dollar speedbump...if not outright career killer.

funny how the price of the film as quoted by 'fans' goes up 50 million each time there was an announcment of how many millions the film made. to the point people are now saying it cost 450 million, when disney's own releases post-reshoots only put it at around 250. admittedly that was still more than twice the original budget (~120 mil) and about 5 million more than The Force Awakens, which had been the most expensive star wars film ever when it came out at 245 mil.

and with a 265 million take from theaters alone, it actually made a profit. i suspect that it'll end up one of those sleeper hits that do better on DVD and digital download, given what it was up against in theaters. once the angry-fan-noise shifts to the upcoming last film of the sequel trilogy and it becomes available for viewing at home whenever, isuspect a lot of people who skipped it in theaters will pick it up..

[ANS Kamas P81]

Budget estimates on this one are hard to come by though I'd seen 250 under L&M and 200 for reshoots, the last time around.  Then there's marketing expenses, which to use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ran 130 million on top of a financial budget estimate of 150 million.  Assume Solo had something similar, so 125-150M for advertising costs, which jacks up the budget significantly.  Even if the combined budget of only 250 and a marketing of 125, that's still a film losing money - studios get, typically, about half of the gross from ticket sales.  Solo would need to break 750 at the box office to have a swing at showing a profit of any kind, and that's not happening.

[Sharpnel]

Why spend that much on adverts? For films like the Potter films and Star Wars, they flipping sell themselves. Lesser known works would require the expenditure, but in this world of social media all it akes is a couple of uploads and  posts on twitter and facebook and word of mouth will carry it at aound the interwebs.

[ANS Kamas P81]

The complete lack of advertising (and thus utter failure) for the John Carter of Mars movie would argue against that theory, I think.

[Sharpnel]

The complete lack of advertising (and thus utter failure) for the John Carter of Mars movie would argue against that theory, I think.

That would have been a movie that would have needed it. Most Edgar Rice Burroughs fans are over 50 or in their graves. Most Superhero (MCU and DC) movies are wasting money on adverts. Word of mouth on social media is all that is really needed.

[Kidd]

Word of mouth on social media is all that is really needed.

You don't think that's natural word of mouth on social media do you? Or that suddenly everyone who's anyone in entertainment is talking the latest Star Wars movie, when the franchise was (and frankly still is) nerd central? All that needs to be paid for, and Hollywood has a very finely tuned machine to drive chatter in the most seemingly-innocuous manner.

The Hollywood formula is even a little discernible these days - teasers on Youtube (aka trailers for a trailer), mini-trailer, TV spots (again trailers for a trailer), Trailer 1, sometimes Trailer 2 or Final Trailer, in between tweets, production stills, "leaks" of plot, images, script, actor interviews, posters, the making of, chat shows, soc-med popups and banners, all accompanied by articles and reactions to articles by the right people in the right places at the right time.

All that stuff operates on a defined schedule, all by design. Most of it unfolds as choreographed as Desert Storm, with some held in reserve and pushed out when the monitors see that views are flagging a little - time to push out some new juicy soundbite and obligatory OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE IT reaction tweets....aka "pulsing" audience attention.

Apparently it costs from 50% to 100% again the production budget, and yes theaters take 50% so a blockbuster movie usually has to make two to three times its production budget to make a profit.

And from a corporate point of view its 'necessary', because it was proven statistically a while back that the more marketing dollars are spent, the higher chance a film has of being a box-office success. There was even a correlation study IIRC linking number of trailers on Youtube and box-office. Ever since then no studio has said no to pouring on the marketing dollars for their big-budget hits.

[qc mech3]

Finally saw it with my mother and we both liked it for different reasons.

Me, a Star Wars geek of the first hours, I loved all the easter eggs and other infos sprinkled all over the movie. I would buy a deck of Sabbak and learn to play right now.  :P

For my mother, who only know of the movies, it was the fact she watched a self-contained film. She understood the story right away and could follow without needing any pryor knowledge of the expended universe. Even the special guest star at the end passed over her head as simply the big boss.  ^-^

All in all, a good afternoon.

[I am Belch II]

I guess if you dont make at least a billion dollars, it was a failure and things need to be put on hold.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/report-in-wake-of-solo-lucasfilm-putting-star-wars-spinoffs-on-hold?__source=Blastr_Vayner_syfy_Facebook&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=starwarsspinoffs&utm_term=paid&utm_content=link_ad

[Kitsune413]

Most of the new stuff isn't on hold. Just movies based on previous characters. Han Solo. Boba Fett, etc.

[Wrangler]

I can't believe they raise the bench mark so darn high for cash flow to.

I guess they spent too much money on Solo. I didn't think i was a terrible movie. 

[Fat Guy]

Before anyone gets carried away: www.theforce.net/story/front/Lucasfilm_Mentions_Multiple_Unannounced_Films_In_Development_181094.asp

[Kidd]

Before anyone gets carried away: www.theforce.net/story/front/Lucasfilm_Mentions_Multiple_Unannounced_Films_In_Development_181094.asp

That's frankly a non-answer, as we all know the phrase "development hell" I'm sure.

But let us hope for the best outcome from all this; that Disney buckles down to making entertaining and enjoyable Star Wars movies that appeal to all and leave us eager for more :thumbsup:

[Deadborder]

I can't believe they raise the bench mark so darn high for cash flow to.

I guess they spent too much money on Solo. I didn't think i was a terrible movie.

It wasn't. The problem was that Disney had to spend a huge pile to reshoot what was looking like it was going to be a terrible movie anyway (Or, at least, a movie they were not at all happy with). They gambled and lost.

The important thing you have to remember, however, is that Disney have made enough money off Star Wars allready that they can just shrug their shoulders and walk away from Solo's box office loss. More to the point, it says a lot that they'd rather risk making a loss on the film then release one that they weren't happy with

[marauder648]

It wasn't. The problem was that Disney had to spend a huge pile to reshoot what was looking like it was going to be a terrible movie anyway (Or, at least, a movie they were not at all happy with). They gambled and lost.

The important thing you have to remember, however, is that Disney have made enough money off Star Wars allready that they can just shrug their shoulders and walk away from Solo's box office loss. More to the point, it says a lot that they'd rather risk making a loss on the film then release one that they weren't happy with

Very true, they basically had to reshoot like 80% of the movie, nearly filming it again in its entirty.  And you're utterly right with them making enough money to shrug it off, its helped that Infinity War's made over 2 billion.

[Kidd]

Sounds like the reshoot saved it from being even worse of a film though, as negative critique seems to be on the funny bits. Imagine if it was even more laughaminute GOT2 crap like it was reputed to be before reshoots...

[ANS Kamas P81]

Sounds like the reshoot saved it from being even worse of a film though, as negative critique seems to be on the funny bits. Imagine if it was even more laughaminute GOT2 crap like it was reputed to be before reshoots...

Maybe that would have been better than the Han Solo Trivia Answer Checklist of a script

[Kidd]

Maybe that would have been better than the Han Solo Trivia Answer Checklist of a script

It would only have been Trivia answer checklist but as presented by the Marx Brothers wearing red noses and throwing blue custard pies around to a rollicking so-retro-its-cool orchestral Yakety Sax soundtrack. Hyuk hyuk hyuk!

[Sharpnel]

Hopefully Disney has destroyed all evidence of the original shoot.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Hopefully Disney has destroyed all evidence of the original shoot.

Man, a double feature of that and Snyder's original Justice League...

[Deadborder]

Man, a double feature of that and Snyder's original Justice League...

Suicide inducing.

That being said, I'd sooner slit my wrists then watch the Wheedon cut

[marauder648]

Ahh Batman Vs Superman...one of the few movies where i've left the cinema feeling angry. 

[ANS Kamas P81]

Anyway, back to Solo.  So what was the deal with Enfys Nest's armor?  I rather liked that look, it had a bit of visual throwback to the clone troopers with that helmet, but all the fins and such were spiff.  Any particular story behind it?

[glitterboy2098]

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Enfys_Nest

looks like nothing yet, beyond the fact it was her mother's. given parts of it is said to be made of Beskar (aka "mandalorian iron" and the stuff mando armor is made from) i'm wondering what the story is myself.

[Luciora]

I kept thinking Briarieos myself.

Anyway, back to Solo.  So what was the deal with Enfys Nest's armor?  I rather liked that look, it had a bit of visual throwback to the clone troopers with that helmet, but all the fins and such were spiff.  Any particular story behind it?

[Fat Guy]

They wanted a native American look, without being too obvious. Her forearm shields were inspired by a feathered headdress.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Yeah, and the teeth-and-bones(?) necklace too.  It's a cool look, and the fur cape is distinctive.  Guess she's just a Boba Fett; neat armor, neat visual design, aaaaaaaand that's it.

[Deadborder]

In a couple of lines she got more personality and motivation then Boba ever did.